Skip to main content

Full text of "Methodism and Anglicanism , in the light of scripture and history ..."

See other formats

Entered according to Act of the Parliapent of Canada, in the year one 
thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, by William Bkicgs, Book- 
Steward of the Methodist Book And Publishing House, Toronto, at 
the Department or Agriculture;/' 



On page '22. in the 10th lino from the top, read "•l > l > 7" instead 

On page 'J'.i. in the 14th line from the top, following the word 
"after, ' read, "he preached in Dublin the sermon on the 
ministerial office, in which sermon " 

On page (io, after the words "papal yoke,' in the 3rd line 
from the bottom, read : 

The following will eorreet the slight inaccuracy on this pa^e 
in dates, but which does not affect the principle set forth 

The full text of the above oath is to be found on page '208 of 
"Acts and Monuments,'' etc., by John Foxe, edition of A.D 
lf>97. It was adopted by a council of Pope Alexander the 
Third, A.D. ]l7!t, and was the formal expression of the 
universal and perfect obedience to Rome after A.D. (170, of 
which ISede writes in Chapter ii. Book iv, Ecclesiastical 
History, where he says of Theodore, "This whs the lirst 
Archbishop whom all the English Church obeyed; and of 
which the historian Henry writes concerning Theodore, he 
-'reduced everything to a perfect conformity to the Church of 
Koine.' See Henry's History of Great Britain, Vol. iii. 
page '207. 


The writer desires to ask the indulgence of his readers for the 
imperfections which appear in this hook. 

Being engaged in the duties of the pastorate, and many other 
matters imperatively demanding attention, his time was so fully 
occupied that it was only under pressure from esteemed friends that 
he consented to reconstruct a series of letters which were written 
in isolated hours snatched from a busy life, and put them in the 
present form. The proof-reading, and other parts of the work, have 
been done under great disadvantages, oftentimes when absent from 
home. This explanation, he trusts, will be accepted as an apology 
for errors which he has discovered when too late to correct them. 

T. G. W. 


On page 64, in the sixth line, read from whom instead of who. On 
page 91, for Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of York, read Edmund 
Bonner, Bishop of London. On page 106, in the eighth line from 
the top, read reasons instead of means. On page 203, for Princeton 
Review for 1885, read Princeton Review for 1855. 


rpO all who love Christ's kingdom intelligently, it is 
-*■ a cause of regret that the necessity for contro- 
versy should ever arise. The Great Teacher, our 
common Master, said, " All ye are brethren, and it 
was no part of His great purpose that His servants 
should waste their energy in internecine strife. His 
teaching demands, and His life exhibits that charity 
without which all profession is but " sounding brass 
and tinkling cymbal." This important lesson of 
Christian charity is fully set forth in God's Word, 
and yet its practical acceptance by the Christian 
Church is one of its latest triumphs. 

In the strife occasioned by the efforts for sectarian 
advancement the claims of others have been ignored, 
and often boldly and offensively denied. The evidence 
of Divine approval, as exhibited in most marvellous 
success in winning men from sin and bringing them 
into vital union with Christ, has gone for nothing ; the 
facts that moral wildernesses have been transformed 
into gardens of the Lord, that the tares of sin have 
been uprooted, and the Rose of Sharon made to bloom 
where all was once thorns and briars ; that hearts have 
been purified, homes made Christian and souls fitted 
for Paradise, all go for nothing ; and offensive epithets 

have been rudely flung at honest toilers successfully- 
doing their Master's work, and who, moreover, hold 
out to the world as their motto : " The friends of all 
and the enemies of none.' It is not the duty of a true 
follower of the Lord of Peace to be quick to take 
offense and sharp to rebuke every insult; nor yet is 
it his duty to remain passive when agencies appointed 
and blessed of God are rudelj' and unfairly assailed. 
Loyalty to truth demands that mischievous errors, and 
assumptions as groundless as they are haughty, should 
be fearlessly met and exposed. 

Ever since the "Holy Club," composed of John and 
Charles Wesley, with Mr. Morton and Mr. Kirkham, 
was organized that they might attain a closer walk 
with God, contumely and reproach have been showered 
upon Wesley and his followers. 

Foremost among the assailants of Methodism we 
ever find that faction in the Episcopalian Church 
known as the Anglican, or High Church party. In 
spirit and teaching they are the legitimate descendants 
of Laud and Bonner, of unsavory memory. They 
have had a distinct and clearly defined form since the 
Tractarian Movement, as it is called, which dates 
from 1833, when Pusey, Manning, Keble, Newman, 
and some men of lesser note, startled and alarmed 
Anglo-Saxon Protestantism by their bold attempts to 
introduce teaching known distinctively as Romish into 
the Episcopalian Church. 

Among the most puissant of their opponents stands 
the Methodist Church, and as the result of this potent 
and successful opposition, the vials of High Church 

wrath have been poured out on this branch of Christ's 
Church. These attacks have been intermittent. When 
encouraged by the cessation of effort on the part of 
the defenders of Methodism to repel these assaults, 
they have grown defiant and insolent, and there have 
been ebullitions of wrath, and lofty pretensions to 
superiority. High Church Rab-shakehs have stood 
before the walls of Methodism and demanded uncondi- 
tional surrender. They claim that they speak in 
the name of the Most High. Their messages are 
intended to terrify the hosts of Methodism, so that 
the condescending offers to enfold them in the 
tender embrace of Anglo-Catholicism will be eagerly 
accepted. Methodists are told they are not a part 
of the Church of Christ ; that their ministers are 
only " priestly pretenders ; " that John Wesley never 
left the Church of England ; that John Wesley was a 
High Churchman and held all the doctrines they now 
hold, such as Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Pres- 
ence, Apostolic Succession, Celibacy, etc.; that Wesley 
never intended that the Methodists should be in- 
dependent of the Church of England, and many such 
characteristic statements. On the other hand, they 
sometimes assure us the Anglo-Catholic Church is the 
direct and lineal descendant of a Church founded in 
Britain by Paul or Pudens in the apostolic age; that 
the present Church of England did not have its origin 
in the Great Reformation which came into notice 
prominently in the reign of Henry VIII., but it was 
simply " the old Church washing her face." These, 
with many others of a similar character, have been 

freely flung out to the world, but the Hezekiahs of 
Methodism have not been alarmed, they have kept on 
their way and continued to do the Master's work, while 
the High Church party have been caused to " hear a 
rumour," and have been compelled, many times, to re- 
turn and defend their pretentious ecclesiastical struc- 
ture with what energy they could command. 

In consequence of recent and persistent attacks on 
the Methodist Church, the following pages have been 
written, in which the effort has been made to refute 
the statements which High Churchmen so persistently 
make against Methodism ; and also point out some of 
the many fatal defects in the economy of the Anglican 
Body which effectually destroy their high pretensions 
that they, with their Romish and Greek sisters, con- 
stitute the only true Church of Christ, and also 
seriously weaken, if they do not totally invalidate, their 
claim to any place in the Household of Faith. 

The charges they prefer against Methodism will be 
discussed in the light of history— secular and ecclesi- 
astical — and proofs furnished by references so as to 
establish the accuracy of the statements beyond all 
reasonable doubt. 

T. G. W. 



Introduction ix 


Bid John Wesley Separate from the Church of England ? — Lord 
Mansfield's Opinion — The testimony of the Bishop of 
Liverpool 11 


Was the Establishment of the Methodist societies into an inde- 
pendent Church in harmony with Wesley's final plans?.. 25 


Was John Wesley a High Churchman ? — What is High Church- 
ism ? — In what sense John Wesley was a High Churchman 
— Wesley's teaching concerning Baptismal Regeneration. . 36 

What was the origin of the Church of England ? 54 


Did the Papal Church, founded in Britain in 596-7, remain a 

Papal Church till the time of Henry VIII. ? 73 


Has the Church of England a valid autonomy, and Apostolic 

line from the Church of Rome ? 84 


Do other Churches admit that the Church of England has an 
Apostolic Succession, such as the High Church Party 
assert they possess? — Are High Churchmen themselves 
satisfied that their ordinations are valid ? 103 


Did the present Church of England arise in the Sixteenth 

Century?— Is it Protestant? 112 


Is High Churchism Romanism? — Extracts from High Church 

Manuals 129 


Is the Episcopal form of Church Government prescribed in 
Scripture?— Is it the only valid form for a Christian 
Church 158 


The Wider Question— Is the High Church doctrine of Apostolic 
Succession a Scriptural truth ? — Was it instituted on the 
mount in Galilee ? 183 


The testimony of history, and of some of the earlier and later 
divines in the Church of England regarding the doctrine 
of Apostolic Succession 190 


What are the tests and proofs of a true Gospel Ministry? — 
First, conformity in essentials to the teachings and 
practices of the Apostles ; and second, our Saviour's test, 
"By their fruits ye shall know them " — How the Epis- 
copalian branch compares with the Methodist, when thus 
tested 209 


The second test of a true Church of Christ, " By their fruits 
ye shall know them " — A comparison of the claims of the 
Episcopal with the Methodist Church 228 


Is the Methodist Church a valid Scriptural Church? — A true 
Church defined— The harmony between the procedure in 
the Methodist Church and the Holy Scriptures 238 


Is Methodist polity in harmony with the Scriptural plan? — An 

examination of its method of ordaining 252 


METHODISM is a revolution, and yet it is not 
revolutionary. It has let loose by its quiet, 
steady growth, potent influences which, in the main, 
have blessed the world, and are conspicuous among 
the great forces which are moulding the age, and yet 
it has been free from every element of anarchy. It 
has been more constructive than destructive. It 
did not originate in feuds, but in a revived spiritual 
life. It is the only great Church in Christendom free 
from the blood of persecution. It did not, with 
hatred, leave and oppose the Church of England. It 
was gradually and most unjustly thrust out of that 
great communion. Our relation to the Anglican 
Church being much misunderstood and misrepresented, 
has, therefore, ever been a fruitful source of contro- 
versy. On the one side, many a wise and catholic 
writer, from Wesley down to Rigg, has calmly and 
correctly stated that relation ; and on the other, many 
a so-called "Churchman," with much petulance, has 
reproached us with what he calls the terrible sin of 
schism, and peremptorily demanded our return to the 
fold of "the Church; while all the world knows that, 
as things are now, there is no more possibility of this 
reunion than there is of the sixty millions of American 
citizens becoming as colonists subject to the govern- 
ment of the thirty millions of people in the British 


Among Methodists there are two extremes of feel- 
ing with reference to these relations. On the one side 
of the suhjeet, and on one side of the Atlantic, there 
are a few — their number fortunately is diminishing — 
who, in their obsequiousness, get down in the dust 
before Anglican assumptions, to the disgust of their 
brethren and of other Churches. Truth compels me 
to say that, on the other side, there are a few, perhaps, 
especially in America — and their number is fortunately 
diminishing — who relegate Anglicans and Romanists 
alike to the death and darkness of reprobacy ; who, in 
fact, share the bigotry and ignorance of their adver- 
saries, and think that, outside of the Methodist Church, 
no body has got " religion." The golden mean here is 
that of manly, courteous, Christian dignity, with calm 
resistance of all assumptions, and at the same time a 
generous appreciation of the magnificent monuments 
of Christian scholarship and Christian enterprise 
characterizing the grand old Church in which Method- 
ism had the honor to be born. This golden mean, I 
think, marks the attitude of my brother who has 
written the following pages. He is thoroughly 
familiar with his subject in all its phases. He loves 
not controversy for controversy's sake, but he knows 
well, as long as Ephraim persists in vexing Judah, how 
to defend against all ecclesiastical intolerance the 
great work of God which we call Methodism, which 
has brought millions to a knowledge of Christ, and 
elevated them to a pure, intelligent, and noble life. 

William I. Shaw, 


Did John Wesley separate from the Church of England? 
— Lord Mansfield's Opinion — The Testimony of 
the Bishop of Liverpool, 

TIME works wondrous changes in the opinions of 
men. A few decades ago it was the custom in 
High Church circles to denounce John Wesley as a 
schismatic and a dissenter from the Church of Eng- 

These denunciations were loud, long and violent. 
But a strange change has come over that party 
in a few years past. By what magic spell it has 
been accomplished I will not say, but their policy has 
undergone a complete revision, and now, they only are 
schismatics, in the estimation of this same faction, 
who refuse to follow, what they, with their new light, 
call Wesley's example. They are now as persistent 
in their affirmations, and as earnest in their efforts to 
prove that John Wesle} 1 " was ever a true and loyal son 
of the Church, and that he ever desired that Meth- 
odism should be merely a society within, and subject 
to, the Church of England, as they formerly were in 
their attempts to brand him as guilty of the terrible 
sin of schism. We very naturally ask, which of their 


contradictory assertions is in accord with fact ; when 
they for many years declared, not brooking any oppo- 
sition, that Wesley was a schismatic, or when they 
say, as they do now, that he was no schismatic, and 
never separated from the Episcopal Church ? It is 
evident that both contradictories cannot be true, so 
we are forced to look at the facts which history 
reveals, and base our opinion on them, rather than on 
the uncertain and mutually destructive declarations 
of High Churchmen. 

We find frequent instances in the writings of 
John Wesley where he affirms his loyalty to the 
Church of his birth, and his oft-expressed determina- 
tion not to leave it. Yet the fact is undeniable that 
he did at different times in his life deliberately violate 
the fundamental laws of the Church, and that he pur- 
sued a course for long years which was in direct 
violation of the canons of the Church. It is also 
true that, while he declared he would not leave the 
Church, he at the same time so set its vital principles 
at defiance that the bishops of the Church denounced 
him as a schismatic, and forbade the clergy to allow 
him to officiate in their churches. In brief, his attitude, 
as shown by all his biographers, was implicit obedi- 
ence to the dictates of conscience, Providential lead- 
ings, and an enlightened reason; and when obedience 
to Church law opposed his sense of duty, the Church 
law was quietly, but firmly, ignored. His deter- 
mination evidently was to remain in the Church 
of England till forced by the authorities of that 
Church to leave it. Were the question in dispute, 


" Did Wesley declare that he would never leave the 
Church of England ? " there would be no more room 
for divergence of opinion than there is when the 
query is, " Did Wesley ever separate from the Church 
of England?" In both instances the reply would 
be in the affirmative. Mr. Tyerman, in his excellent 
biogra phy, claims that there is a glaring inconsist - 
ency between Wesley's declaration on this points 
and hi s conduct, but it is possible that if the lips 
of the dead were unclosed, and his true meaning 
pl aced before us, the divergence would shrink marvel- 
lously. This question was considered by Wesley and 
the Conferences in two aspects, w 7 hich differed widely 
in their moral significance. One was, Is it right in 
a moral or religious sense for us to separate from 
the Church of England ? the other, Is it expedient for 
us to do so ? The question as to whether it was 
expedient, as a matter of course, could not be debated 
with any consistency, till it was settled that there was 
no moral wrong, nor any violation of true religious 
principle in so doing, for all will admit that no court 
of religious men could agree that it was expedient to 
do a thing which was morally wrong, or of the 
morality of which they were in doubt. The}- did not 
belong to the class of religious teachers who proclaim 
that they may " do evil that good may come." There 
must have been at least the admission that it was 
not morally wrong, or they could not have con- 
sistently debated whether it would be expedient for 
them to separate from the Church of England. Both 
aspects of the question engaged the attention, not 


only of Wesley and the Conferences, but of many 
clergymen in the Church of England, and widely 
divergent views were held. The Church party con- 
tended that it was a plain violation of God's law, and 
any who did so were guilty of the dreadful sin of 
schism ; and there were those who not only denied 
that it was in any sense contrary to the Divine Word, 
but held that, in view of the painfully apparent want 
of spiritual life in nearly all of the clergymen of the 
Episcopal body, and the shameless profligacy and 
immorality of vast numbers of those who read her 
services and administered the sacraments in her 
churches, it was not simply a right thing to separate 
from such an unholy communion, but it was also a 
solemn and imperative duty to do so Wesley at first 
held the former view, and contended it would be a sin 
against God for them to leave the Church, but after 
full discussions he very greatly modified this view, 
and instead of debating the question solely as a 
matter of right or wrong, he is found arguing with 
his Conferences on it as a question of expediency, 
tacitly admitting that there was no moral wrong in the 
proposed course, and also acknowledging he could not 
" answer the reasons urged in favor of separation." 
Surely he would not have found any difficulty in 
answering reasons urged in favor of what he believed 
to be contrary to God's law and will ! 

As early as 1755 Wesley wrote the following, after 
listening to the arguments urged for separation from 
the Church : 

" I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer 


these arguments to my own satisfaction ; so that my 
conclusion, which I cannot yet give up, that it is 
lawful to continue in the Church, stands almost with- 
out any premises that are able to bear its weight." 
(Tyerman's Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 208.) 

And further on, he says regarding the course he 
had pursued, in " preaching abroad," "praying extem- 
pore," " forming societies," and " permitting preachers 
who were not episcopally ordained," " Were we pushed 
on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we 
should judge it our bounden duty rather wholly to 
separate from the Church, than to give up any one 
of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop a 
separation without stopping lay preachers, the case 
is clear : we cannot stop it at all.' Yet it will be 
noticed that these points, of which he says, he will 
" rather wholly separate from the Church than give 
up any one of them,' were violations of the laws 
of the Church of England. There is great signifi- 
cance in the words of Wesley, in the first of the 
above quotations. The question before them was 
not simply, " Will it be an unlawful act for us to 
separate from the Church ? " but a sharper one than 
that, for Wesley says, " My conclusion that it is lawful 
to continue in the Church, stands almost without any 
premises that are able to bear its own weight." In 
other words, " Can we continue in even the partial 
relation which we now bear to the Church without 
doing a morally unlawful thing ? " His prejudices 
would not yet allow him to give up his attachment to 
the National Church, and still he could not answer 


satisfactorily, even to himself, the reasons submitted 
to him in favor of a separation. It was simply a 
conflict between early prejudices on one side, and the 
decision of his judgment, reason, and conscience on 
the other. Did he ever fully settle the contention ? 
We think not. There is abundant evidence that even 
to the latest years of his life there remained the an- 
tagonism between a loved theory and a stern sense 
of duty. Still his was no vacillating and inconstant 
course, for while he permitted his prejudices to mould 
and control his theory to a considerable extent, judg- 
ment, reason, and conscience swayed an imperial 
sceptre over the domain of Wesley's actions. From 
these opposing forces discord must arise, and we find 
it in the want of harmony between the words of 
Wesley, in which he often declares his adherence to 
the Church of England, and his acts of open rebellion 
against laws which that Church held as fundamental. 
That this antagonism existed and manifested itself in 
what must be admitted as inconsistencies between 
Wesley's words and acts, no one can deny, but it 
materially weakens, if it does not totally destroy the 
moral force of the charge, when we remember that 
Wesley openly and honestly admitted he could not 
defend his theory, which was the offspring of his pre- 
judices ; while, on the other hand, he as boldly de- 
clared his perfect confidence in the righteousness of 
his acts, which were at once contradictions to his 
theory and rebellion against the Church of England. 
He further declared, in reference to these acts of 


rebellion against the authority of the Church of Eng- 
land, that " it would be our bounden duty rather 
wholly to separate from the Church, than to give up 
any one of these points." 

In other words, Wesley stated that in this conflict 
between his theory, the offspring of his prejudices, 
which he could not defend ; and his deliberate acts, 
which were the results of his judgment, reason, and 
conscience, and which he could defend, if it came to 
a final issue, he would abandon the defenceless theory 
to destruction, and continue the course of conduct 
which was opposed to his theory, that is, he would be 
controlled by judgment, reason, and conscience in the 
discharge of his duty to God and man, rather than 
by prejudices. Now we shall undertake to show that 
this was the course Wesley actually pursued, that in 
fact he did separate from the Church of England, and 
it follows that it was only because the Episcopal Church 
did not force these antagonistic elements to a final 
issue, that John Wesley was not driven to an open, 
formal, and declared separation from the National 
Church. I shall now submit proof that as the term 
" separation from a Church " is now understood in 
ordinary language, Wesley did undoubtedly, by his 
acts, separate from the Church of England. 

Charles Wesley endeavored to dissuade John from 
ordaining ministers. In a letter written hiin dated July 
27th, 1786, Charles says , " I believe Lord Mansfield's 
decisive words to me — 'Ordination is separation. " We 
have here the opinion of Charles Wesley, and Lord 
Mansfield — one of England's most celebrated jurists — 


clearly and positively stated, that by this violation of 
the principle upon which the orders of the Church of 
England rests, viz., that of episcopacy, which permits 
only such as hold what they term bishop's orders, to 
ordain others, Wesley actually separated himself from 
the Church of England. Tyernian himself puts it with 
equal explicitness in the third volume of his Life of 
Wesley, pp. 448 and 449, where he says : " There 
can be no doubt that, as a minister of the Church 
of Christ, Wesley had as much right to ordain as any 
bishop, priest, or presbyter in existence : but he had 
no right to this as a clergyman of the Church of Eng- 
land, and by acting as he did he became what he was 
unwilling to acknowledge, a Dissenter, a separatist 
from that Church. Such was the opinion of Lord 
Mansfield, and such was the argument of Wesley's 

The Life of Wesley, by that polished scholar, but 
bitter foe of Wesley, Southey, bears clear testimony 
to the correctness of the position that Wesley separ- 
ated from the Church of England. He says : " Wesley 
had long deceived himself respecting the part which 
he was acting toward the Church of England. At the 
outset of his career he had no intention of setting 
himself up in opposition to it ; and when, in his pro- 
gress toward schism, he disregarded its forms, and 
set its discipline at naught, he still repeatedly dis- 
claimed all views of separation. Nor did he ever 
avow the wish, or refer to it as a likely event, with 
complacency, even when he must have perceived that 
the course of his conduct and the temper of his fol- 


lowers rendered it inevitable. On this occasion (the 
ordination of Dr. Coke) his actions spoke for him ; by 
arrogating to himself the episcopal authority he took 
the only step which was wanting to form the Metho- 
dists into a distinct body of separatists from the 
Church. (Souther's Life of We*ln/, vol. ii., p. i'lO.) 

We cannot imagine the Methodists as a "distinct 
body of separatists from the Church," with John 
Wesley at their head, and he, their head, a member of 
the Church of England, and not a " separatist.' 

Again, the testimony of another Church of England 
writer — Miss Wedgewood — is clear and positive on 
this point. -Miss Wedgewood says: "It was not in 
their (the Church of England) power to CRUSH the 
new order, but the strange anomalies of English law 
had left it in their rower to force it to become a 
sect. If it was possible that the Church of England 
should sanction an itinerant order preaching her doc- 
trines, and, with the few additions necessary to 
secure their own existence, enforcing her rules, the 
clergy of the eighteenth century determined to make 
it impossible. They excommunicated the Methodists; 
they set on the mob to stone them ; they diverted all 
the energy which had been spent on Deists and Arians 
to attack the men who preached the Gospel to heathens. 
Thus forced into a camp of their own, organiza- 
order. They would gladly still have attended the 
parish churches ; they did for very long continue to 
repair to them for the sacred rites which formed their 
pledges of church-membership ; but even this had 


to be given up at last, and at the close of Wesley's 
long life the time arrived for this last stage in 
Methodist organization and separation from the 
Church." (See Wedgewood's John Wesley, and the 
Evangelical Reaction of the 18th Century" pp. 378 
and :i7D.) 

The Bishop of Liverpool, Dr. Ryle, in a lecture he 
delivered recently, said, "There are many things the 
people ought to know ahout Wesley that are not 
generally known, and among them this: That he loved 
the Church of England from the earliest days of his 
life ; that he never formally left the Church of Eng- 
land, but that the Church of England obliged him to 
go outside.'' (Methodism a Part of the Great Chris- 
tian Apodaey. By \V. Christie, B.A. Cainb., p. 4.) 

Surely our High Church friends will not claim that, 
when their predecessors " obliged " Wesley "to go out- 
side,' he was at the same time " inside the Church of 
England." It is clear from these testimonies that, 
though Wesley may have desired to remain in the 
Church of England, and did frequently declare he 
would not leave it, yet, as a matter of fact, he was 
actually " outside " the Church, by the action of the 
ecclesiastical ancestors of the very men who now so 
eagerly declare Wesley never left the Church. It 
is certain he could not be both " inside " and " out- 
side' the Church at the same time. After this state- 
ment from the Bishop of Liverpool, one sees clearly 
that one reason why Anglicans now contend Wesley 
never left the Church is because, to use the bishop's 
own words, "There are many things the people 


ought to know about Wesley that are not generally 
known, and among them this that the Church 

of England obliged him to go outside.' In other words, 
they say Wesley never left the Church, because there 
are some things they ought to know that they do not 

The position of Wesley in regard to this matter is 
also shown by several other important acts. 

Every reader of Methodist history knows that, when 
the question of holding meetings in the Methodist 
chapels during church hours was first discussed in the 
Conferences, Wesley refused to allow it, declaring that 
such an act would be equal to separation from the 
Church ; yet before Wesley's death we find that he 
sanctioned this act, which he before said was equal to 
separation from the Church. (See Minutes of the 
Conference held at Bristol, July 2Jth, 1780, where the 
following question was asked : 2. In what cases do 
we allow of service in Church hours ? A. 1. When 
the minister is a notoriously wicked man. 2. When 
he preaches Arian, or any equally pernicious doctrine, 
etc., etc.) (See Myles' Chronological History of Meth- 
odism,, p. 171.) 

The following historical facts are convincing as to 
his independent attitude to the Church : 

" Mr. Wesley had hitherto ordained ministers only 
for America and Scotland, but from this period, being 
assisted by the Rev. James Creighton, and the Rev. 
Peard Dickenson, presbyters of the Church of England, 
he set apart for the sacred office, by the imposition of 
hands, and prayer, Messrs. Alexander Mather, Thomas 


Rankin and Henry Moore without sending them out 
of England." (See Myles' Chronological History of 
the People colled Methodists, p. 175.) 

" Mr. Wesley had hitherto ordained ministers only 
for America and Scotland. But during the period I 
have mentioned, being assisted by other presbyters of 
the Church of England, he set apart a certain number 
of preachers for the sacred office, by the imposition of 
his hands, and prayer, zuithout sending them out of 
England."- (See Moore's Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 175.) 

See also Encyclopaedia Brit. Art. Meth., p. 187 : "At 
length, in 17*S8, Wesley ordained a number of preachers 
to assist him in w {minister [tig the sacraments to the 
societies in England." 

See report of the case of Mastin vs. Escott, tried in 
England before Sir Herbert Jenner, p. 181. 

Dr. Haggard. and it would have been 

proved indisputably that Mr. Wesley toward the close 
of his life relaxed from that principle which influenced 
him in early life, and that he did not hesitate himself 
to impart the sacraments, and by his authority, advice 
and sanction, he also communicated that power to 
some of his followers. . These ministers ad- 

ministered both the sacrament of laptism and the 
sacrament of the Holy Communion." 

But Anglicans tell us that in the year 1789 Wesley 
preached the sermon "On the Ministerial Office,' and 
in it abandoned the theory that presbyters and bishops 
were but one order. On the contrary, proof exists 
which shows that after June 26th, 1790, Wesley 
actually exercised the power which Anglicans declare 
he, in 1789, denied he possessed. 


For proof, see Life of Wesley by Coke and Moore. 
On pp. 430 and 431 is to be found a letter written by 
Wesley to a bishop in the Church of England, and 
dated " June 26th, 1790," and immediately after the 
letter follow these sentences : 

" Mr. Wesley had hitherto ordained ministers only 
for^America and Scotland. But during the period we 
have mentioned, being assisted by other presbyters of 
the Church of England, he set apart a certain number 
of preachers for the sacred office, by the imposition of 
his hands, and prayer, without sending them out of 


the above letter." That is, Wesley ordained a 
minister in 1790, the year after the Anglicans say 
that he renounced his belief that presbyters and 
bishops were the same order. 

The following conditions are necessary to effect a 
legal, formal and public separation of one from a com- 
munity of which he is a member : 1st. A violation of 
some law, the penalty for which is expulsion. 2nd. A 
judgment by the proper authorities, that the conduct 
of one accused is such a violation. 3rd. The imposi- 
tion of the penalty upon the transgressor. 4th. The 
publication of the judgment and of the enforcement of 
the sentence. But for a virtual separation all these 
conditions are not necessary, and can be effected with 
only a portion of them. A violation of a law, the 
penalty of which is exclusion, the judgment by the 
proper authorities, and the declaration of the sentence, 
constitute virtual separation. All these met in the 
case of John Wesley and the English Church. 1st. 


He violated the laws in several ways already specified. 
2nd. He was judged by the bishops. 3rd. He was 
punished by exclusion from participation in Church 
services in any of their parishes, though not formally 
expelled. These three certainly constitute a virtual 
separation, and all meet in the case, English Church 
vs. John Wesley. He, however, refused to recognize 
the significance of the act, because the open and formal 
expulsion was not made, yet it remains an undeniable 
fact that, in the common-sense and ordinary use of 
words, John Wesley did separate from the Church of 
England. This open rebellion against Church author- 
ity, his bold defiance of its fundamental canons, and 
his action in securing the legal and ecclesiastical 
autonomy of the Methodists as a Christian Church, 
which we will show in the next chapter, prove, beyond 
all possibility of reasonable doubt, that John Wesley 
did separate himself from the Episcopalian Church in 


Was the Establishment of the Methodist Societies into 
an Independent Church in Harmony zvith Wesley s 
Final Plans ? 

AN answer in the affirmative to the above question 
would result from the conclusions reached in the 
preceding chapter ; but as there is a slight difference 
in the questions, and the proofs are so interlaced that 
each position strengthens the other, it will be well to 
submit, in addition to these already presented, proofs 
bearing immediately on this point. As such frequent 
references are made by High Churchmen to Wesley's 
opposition to separation from the Church of England, 
and, as it is a fact that actual separation had taken 
place before Wesley's death, it will be well to obtain 
Wesley's own explanation of what he meant when he 
so frequently pressed his followers "not to separate 
from the Church of England." 

It may be that by so doing his position will be more 
clearly apprehended. 

We will allow Wesley to speak for himself on this 
matter of separation from the Church, and have his 
explanation of his oft-repeated injunction, " not to 
leave the Church," which High Churchmen quote so 


Let us see what Wesley meant by " leaving the 
Church/ and whether he did not approve of the sep- 
aration of the Methodists in the very way in which it 
was accomplished. 

In proof I will give one of Wesley's own letters on 
this point. The letter was written on the 20th day of 
September, 1788, at Bristol, and is found in Wesley's 
Works, vol. vii. p. 319: "Thoughts on Separation 
from the Church." 

" Mv Dear Fuikxd, — The question properly refers 
(when we speak of separation from the Church) to a 
total and immediate separation. Such was that of 
Mr. Ingham's people first, and afterwards that of Lady 
Huntingdon's, who all agreed to form themselves into 
a separate body without delay, to go to the Church 
no more ; to have no more connection tvith the Church 
of England than with the Church of Home. Such a 
separation I have always declared against, and cer- 
tain^ it will not take place (if it ever does) while I 
live. But a hind of separation has already taken 
place, and will inevitably spread, though by stow 
degrees. Those ministers, so called, who neither live 
nor preach the gospel, I dare not say are sent of God. 
Where one of them is settled many of the AI.ethcdi.sts 
dare not attend his ministry ; so if there be no other 
church in the neighborhood they go to church no more. 
This is the case in a few places already, and it will be 
the case in more ; and no one can justly blame me for 
this, neither is it contrary to any of my professions. 

John Wesley. 

'Bristol, Sept. 20th, 1788." 

Methodism and Anglicanism. 27 

This letter explains Wesley's position on the ques- 
tion of separation from the Church of England. It 
shows that he was opposed to a " total and immediate 
separation, in which the people as a body would all 
agree to form themselves into a separate body without 
delay, and to have no more connection with the 
Church of England than with the Church of Rome;'" 
that is to say, Wesley opposed a hasty, violent and 
angry separation from the Church of England, in which 
there would be as violent antagonism to that Church 
as there was to the Church of Rome. It also shows, 
to use Wesley's own words, " that a kind of separation 
had already taken place, and would inevitably spread," 
and that this " separation was not contrary to any of 
his professions," but, on the contrary, he provided for 
the wants of the Methodists after this separation, by 
having his preachers licensed under law to preach, by 
ordaining them to administer the sacraments, and by 
securing a legal standing for the Conference by an Act 
of Parliament. Of this kind of separation Wesley 
said, it " was not contrary to any of my profes- 
sions.'' It was a quiet, peaceable, gradual separation, 
not effected by hast}', violent acts on the part of the 
Methodists, but forced upon them by the violence and 
brutalit}' of the Church of England, as their own his- 
torian, Miss Wedgewood, admits. This kind of separa- 
tion, which had already taken place, did spread till it 
completed the separation of the Methodist Church 
from the Church of England, and it was the kind of 
separation which Wesley said "was not contrary to 
any of my professions." 


It shows that Wesley saw, and consented to a kind 
of separation from the Church, which he knew would 
"inevitably spread," and which he foresaw would end 
in the total separation of the Methodists from the 
Church of England ; and by ordaining ministers for his 
societies he built them up, and prepared them ecclesi- 
astically, for the position which he secured to them 
legally by the Deed of Settlement, of which he said it 
is " a foundation likely to stand as long as the sun 
and moon endure." 

In the light of these surroundings it is clear Wesley 
foresaw the end of the separation which he says had 
already begun, and he wisely provided for the Church 
which, under the providence of God, he founded, and 
which, by God's blessing, has done much to aid in 
the work of spreading the Gospel. 

We now see that it is only from a superficial view 
of the real facts, and by ignoring Wesley s explana- 
tion of what he meant by separating from the Church, 
as well as by denying the judgment of those most 
fully qualified to judge, that one can say that "Wesley 
never left the Church of England,' and that he did not 
intend the Methodist societies should be separate from 
that Church. In other words, an affirmative answer 
must be given to the question — "Is it ignorance of 
the history of Methodism that makes the Anglicans 
claim that Wesley never left the Church ? " — for it is 
perfectly clear Mr. Wesley did leave the Episcopal 
Church, and organized, and carried out successfully, a 
plan which effectually separated the Methodists from 
the Church of England, and of which Wesley said, 
" Neither is it contrary to my professions.'' 


But further proof is found that Mr. Wesley de- 
signed to secure the permanent establishment of the 
societies he organized in the legal standing which he 
provided for them. 

He obtained a Deed of Settlement securing a legal 
standing for the Methodist Conference, and said of it, 
that " it is a foundation likely to stand as long as 
the sun and moon endure.'' (See Coke and Moore's 
Life of Wesley, p. 306.) 

But Anglicans contend that Wesley did not intend 
that the Methodists should form a separate and inde- 
pendent church, and claim that though the Deed of 
Settlement gave them a legal standing, yet it could not 
be that Wesley designed that they should be an inde- 
pendent church, because " the deed did not provide 
for the administration of the sacraments." They for- 
get that Wesley held the power to ordain ministers, 
and actually did ordain them, and thus provided for the 
sacraments, hence it was not necessary to incorporate 
this ecclesiastical authority already in possession, in a 
document which was purely a legal security for the 
Methodist Church against the bitter and brutal spirit 
of persecution which governed this boasted apostolic 
Church of England. 

Then again, though the English Church in the case 
of Archbishop Parker's ordination, and that of several 
other bishops, obtained their power to consecrate, 
from an ordinal devised by a secular court, viz., the 
Parliament, yet Wesley and the Methodists did not 
believe such a court could confer such powers, and 
hence it was not necessary to include them in the Deed 


of Settlement. But now for the proof that Wesley 
meant that the Methodists should form a separate and 
independent. church. 

The following historical facts prove that Wesley, 
however reluctantly, did provide for the separate and 
independent existence of the Methodist Church: 

1st. He and his ministers held services in the Meth- 
odist churches during "church hours," for many yours, 
which at first he refused to do, holding that it would 
be equal to a separation from the Church. (See Myles' 
Chron. His. of Met h., -p. 172.) 

2nd. He obtained a Deed of Settlement securing a 
legal standing for the Methodist Conference, and said 
of it, that " it was a foundation likely to stand as long 
as the sun and moon endure.' (See Coke and Moore's 
Life of Wesley, p. 306.) 

3rd. He had his preachers licensed as preachers 
under the Act for the protection of Dissenting Minis- 
ters. (See Myles' Chron. His., book vii., p. 17-1 ; Wes- 
ley s Work*, vol. iv., p. GS3 : and Moore's Life of Wes- 
ley, book viii., chap. 4.) 

4th. He ordained minisisters for the work of ad- 
ministering the sacraments to the Methodists in 
America, in Scotland, in Ireland and in England. ( See 
Moore's Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 227; Myles' Chron. 
His. of the People called Methodists, p. 175 ; Encyclo- 
paedia Brit. Art. Meth., p. 187.) 

5th. Wesley secured all the property and financial 
interests of the Methodists to them as a body perfectly 
independent of the Church of England. 

6th. The members of the Methodist societies, .as 


such, were in no way responsible to the Church of 
England for obedience to the laws of the Church, 
and actually yielded no such obedience to the Church 
of England. 

In summing up we learn that the relation of Meth- 
odism to the Church of England before Wesley's death, 
which relation Wesley, after much thought and effort, 
himself secured for it was as follows : The Methodists 
had separate places of worship, in which they conducted 
services at the same time as the Church of England. 
They had their own ministers licensed under the Act for 
Dissenting Ministers. They bad their own sacraments 
provided for, b}" ministers ordained by Wesley himself. 
They had their own financial system, and their prop- 
erty entirely independent of, and outside, the Church 
of England ; and though all these privileges were 
legally secured to the Methodists by Mr. Wesle}', yet in 
this age some men have the effrontery to say Mr. 
Wesley nerer intended the Methodist Church to be 
independent of the Church of England ! which, I sub- 
mit the plain historical facts I have produced, abun- 
dantly and positively contradict; and, on the other 
hand, they fully establish the claim that the establish- 
ment of the Methodist Societies into an independent 
church was the actual aim of Mr. Wesley's final plans, 
and that it was successfully accomplished by him. 

Without having the explanation which it is possible 
Wesley might give, were be now living, it is impos- 
sible for us fully to exonerate him from the charge of 
inconsistency, which some of his biographers, especially 
Tyerman and Southey, prefer against him ; yet we do 


not admit for one moment that there is a particle 
of truth in the more serious charge of hypocrisy and 
deceit with which the latter, with so much bitterness, 
charges him. From the training of his childhood, 
youth, and manhood, Wesley held views, which are 
now admitted to be extreme and untenable, regarding 
the claims of the Established Church upon all profess- 
ing the Christian faith who were born in England. 
He held that all who were not dissenters either by 
birth, or by choice, were members of the National 
Church of England, and that this birthright privilege 
could not be forfeited save by a formal expulsion, or 
by a voluntary and declared union with some dissenting 
Church. In his case neither of these conditions was 
present, for while he openly violated principles held 
as sacred and fundamental by the National Church 
in his day, and was inhibited from the exercise of his 
ministry in their pulpits and parishes, in condemnation 
of his irregular and disobedient conduct ; yet, owing 
to the wonderful, and in many instances, shamefully 
lax administration of Church discipline which pre- 
vailed, no formal sentence of expulsion was ever pro- 
nounced against him. Thus, while he actually left the 
Church of England by trampling under his feet the 
principle of obedience to the bishops, and even by 
assuming, and actually exercising, the distinguishing 
prerogatives of the espiscopal order, yet, as he was 
never formally expelled, he declared he was still 
a member of the Episcopalian Church. And again, 
while he organized, consolidated, and secured a legal 
position for Methodism, of which he was the founder, 


still, as it was not formally declared by competent 
Church courts to be ecclesiastically a dissenting 
church, but viewed by them as an irregularity which 
would probably disappear with the death of its 
founder, though he was the head, the law-maker, and, 
as Southey would have him, the imperious autocrat of 
this new body of Christians, yet he never assumed that 
it was what it had never been authoritatively declared 
to be, a dissenting church, hence he never professed to 
be a member of a dissenting church. Still the fact stands 
immovable amid all his declarations that he would 
never leave the Church of England, that nevertheless 
he, by his deliberate and determined acts, put himself 
in such an attitude to the Church that, had the laws 
upon which the very existence ecclesiastically of the 
Church of England was based been put in force, 
John Wesley would have been degraded from her 
ministry, and expelled from her communion. His 
legal status in the Church of England, because of his 
open,- wilful, and persistent violations of her funda- 
mental principles, can be properly compared to the 
legal status of a man who openly, wilfully, and per- 
sistently violates a law, the penalty for which is the 
loss of his life, and yet, because of a laxity in the en- 
forcement of the law, he is not actually deprived of life, 
though the community of which he is a member declare 
his guilt, and deny him the privileges of citizenship. 
Such a person may truthfully declare, "I am a member 
of your community, for you have not executed the 
law, and I will never cease to be till death, unless you 
enforce your laws which I have violated, and thus com- 


pel me to separate from you. Further, I will continue 
to violate these laws, for however sacred you may 
think them, I cannot keep a clear conscience and obey 
them, though on the whole I admire your code, and 
think it the best yet formulated, notwithstanding 
its serious defects. Tt is not our duty to explain 
why the laws against Wesley were not enforced. 
That falls to the lot of those who differ from us. 
John Wesley admired and loved the Church of 
England, yet his love of souls was a stronger passion ; 
and when the claims of the Church on his obedience 
demanded that he should disobey her fundamental 
principles, or forego his labors to save the lost, the 
stronger love prevailed, and John Wesley, calmly, de- 
liberately, and conscientiously, began, and continued 
for fifty three years, a systematic violation of such laws 
of the Church of England as would have, if enforced, 
expelled him from her communion. Of this he was 
aware, but he was determined that if he and his 
societies were "forced into a camp of their own," it 
should be by the action of the Church authorities, and 
not by any formal declaration from him or his societies. 
Till this formal action was taken he persisted in claim- 
ing his right to membership in the National Church to 
which, he held, his birth entitled him. 

But when we turn to the actual, instead of the 
theoretical and formal, we are forced to the conclusion 
that Wesley, by his violations of Church law, did 
separate from the Church of England, and his bio- 
graphers say, " This was the opinion of his brother 
Charles and of Lord Mansfield." What is here said of 


the actual relation of Wesley to the National Church, 
may with equal force and accuracy be affirmed of the 
relation of the Methodism of England to the Church 
of England. While there was no formal and official 
declaration of the separation, that separation was an 
accomplished fact years before Wesley's death. That 
this separation was actual, and was recognized as such 
by the parliament of the realm, is placed beyond dis- 
pute by the enactment of a statute secured by Wesley, 
called the Deed of Settlement, whereby the indepen- 
dent autonomy of the Methodist Church was placed 
upon a basis which Wesley declared " likely to 
stand as long as the sun and moon endure.' When 
the facts are thus even briefly presented, it is apparent 
that to say, John Wesley never left the Church of 
England, and never intended that the Methodists 
should be separated from, and independent of, the 
Episcopalian Church, is simply a play upon words, 
and does not express the true relation of John Wesley 
and Methodism to the Church of England. From 
Wesley's deliberate acts it is perfectly evident the 
separation of .Methodism from the Church of England 
harmonized with his intentions in his later years, and 
he said it was not contrary to any of his professions. 


Was John Wesley a High Churchman ? What is High 
Churchism ? In what sense John Wesley was a 
High Churchman. Wesley's teaching concerning 
Baptismal Regeneration. 

IT is a cause of surprise to Methodists who are not 
familiar with the facts, when they are tohl for 
the first time, calmly, and in a tone of perfect assur- 
ance by some High Churchman, that, ' John Wesley 
was himself a High Churchman." Their astonishment 
will be increased when their informant blandly insinu- 
ates that they are not familiar with Wesley's writings, 
or they would know that when in Georgia, Wesley 
taught doctrines that were " very High Church," and 
that in 1775, when Wesley was seventy-two years of 
age, he wrote a letter to Lord North, in which he says, 
" I am a High Churchman, the son of a High Church- 
man." If not familiar with the sense in which Wesley 
used this term, they will be in a strange dilemma. 
They will at once think of the Komish doctrines 
taught by the High Church party, since its organiza- 
tion in its present form by the leaders of the Tractarian 
movement of 1833, and find themselves confused by 
any attempt to reconcile them with what they have 
ever recognized as Methodist doctrine. 


They will call to mind that the High Church party 
teach that water baptism is the means by which one 
is regenerated, or born again ; while they have always 
been taught that a man is regenerated when through 
godly sorrow for past sins, and a present personal faith 
in Jesus Christ as his Saviour, he rests upon the atone- 
ment made for his sins, that then, and not till then, 
does the Spirit of God create him anew in Christ 
Jesus; and that though the sacrament of baptism may 
have been administered to him, still he is not thereby 
regenerated, for Wesley said in his sermon on the New 
Birth, " Be you baptized or unbaptized, you must be 
born again!" 

They find they cannot reconcile the teachings of 
John Wesley with the Romish doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration, and they wonder why Wesley said, " I 
am a High Churchman/' 

Then they call to mind that the High Churchmen 
of to-day teach the doctrine of the real presence of 
Christ's body of flesh and blood, in the bread and 
wine, the sacramental symbols, and their difficulty 
increases if they try to reconcile this with Wesley's 
life-long teaching. 

Then follow in rapid succession the recollection of 
other dogmas taught by the High Church, such as 
private confession of sins to a priest, with absolution 
by the priest; the doctrine of Apostolic succession, 
which High Churchmen hold as essential, but which 
Wesley denied ; and many other important and essen- 
tial matters in which there is the most positive contra- 
diction between the views Wesley taught, and the 


teaching of High Churchmen. The darkness thickens 
till, from the force of the contradictions, light breaks 
in, and they discover that when Wesley said, "I am a 
High Churchmen," he meant something essentially and 
entirely different from the High Churchism of to-day. 
With this simple, and yet inevitable discovery, a new 
character attaches to the kind, patronizing High 
Church friend, who is so generously trying to en- 
lighten them, and he now stands before them as one 
who does not know that the whole of John Wesley's 
life as the founder' of Methodism, was an earnest and 
practical contradiction to High Churchism; or, in the 
still less enviable character of one who is endeavor- 
ing to proselyte by resorting to deception. 

It will be well for 113 to present very briefly at this 
point some of the doctrines which are known as dis- 
tinctively High Church, so that the glaring contra- 
diction between them and the teaching of John Wesley, 
which is faithfully reproduced by the Methodist 
Church of to-day, may be seen. At a later period it 
will be proven that the doctrines here attributed to 
the High Church are actually held and taught by them. 

How can one acquainted with John Wesley say he 
was a High Churchman, when it is known that High 
Church teaching means an acceptance of the doctrine 
of episcopacy, or three distinct and separate orders in 
the ministry, as essential to the existence of a true 
Church of Christ, while John Wesley held the belief 
that a presbyter and a bishop were one and the same 
order, and that there was not a third order in the 
ministry. High Churchism also means a belief in an 


unbroken line of apostolic succession from the apostles 
to the present time, and John Wesley said of that 
claim, " It is a fable which no man ever did or can 
prove.'' It also means auricular or private confession 
of sins to a priest, with a belief that the priest is em- 
powered of God to absolve the penitent. They claim 
that the social means of grace, called class-meeting, 
instituted by Wesley, is a proof of their assertion that 
Wesley held the views the}" teach on this point. (See 
John Wedey in Compart y with High Churchmen.) 

A few moments will suffice to remove all such false 
notions. There is not one essential feature the same. 
Confession means an acknowledgment of particular 
sins. A class-meeting may consist entirely of acknow- 
ledgments of the kind dealings of God with the 
members of the class, the recording anew of vows of 
service, and the expression of encouraging words, with- 
out one word of confession of sin. It is not a con- 
fessional. Auricular confession, as taught by the 
Romanists and High Churchmen, means a private con- 
fession of sins in the ear of a priest ; whereas in the 
class-meeting the leader is generally a layman or a 

High Church confession implies also the power in 
the priest to absolve the penitent from the penalties 
of the sins confessed, while no such profanation of 
God's prerogative ever enters the mind of the mem- 
bers or leaders of a Methodist class-meeting. Confes- 
sion as taught by High Churchmen means private 
confession to the priest alone ; whereas all the words 
spoken in class-meetings are spoken for all present to 


hear, and for their profit. Nothing but the conviction 
that their cause was on the verge of absolute ruin, 
could have induced High Churchmen to even attempt 
to prove that John Wesley was a High Churchman 
by asserting that the organization of the Methodists 
in class-meetings proved that he believed in that 
shame and scandal, called auricular confession. By no 
fair interpretation can even the strongest expressions 
occasionally used by Wesley about the benefit of 
" confessing our sins to one another " be made to sanc- 
tion the Romish and High Church doctrine of auricular 

High Church, or Anglican teaching, also means a 
belief in the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood 
in the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper; the 
benefit of prayers for the dead, and Purgatory, and 
what may seem more astonishing to those unfamiliar 
with their marvellous advances towards Rome, they 
now in England are urgently demanding that the 
clergy remain unmarried, "notwithstanding all the 
enormities to which the practice has notoriously given 
rise." (See Audi Alteram Partem, or High Church, by 
Rev. H. A. Smith, M.A., Rector of Tansley, England, 
p. 112.) 

It is clear John Wesley was not a High Churchman 
in the sense implied by an acceptance of these Romish 
absurdities, the latter of which has been the prolific 
cause of crimes for which " the land has been made to 

NflThey take their firmest and boldest stand in proof 
of the assertion that John Wesley was a High Church- 


man on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It 
demands a fair and full investigation, although 
Wesley's sermon on the New Birth undoubtedly de- 
fines his attitude on the doctrine in a simple, clear and 
positive manner. In order that the teaching of the 
High Church, and that of Wesley on baptismal regen- 
eration, may be clearly apprehended, some of their 
clearest statements by their standard and recognized 
authorities will be presented, and followed by the 
powerful, terse language of Wesley in relation to this 

The following quotations will be found in the Con- 
ference of Divines, p. 102 : 

The High Church party say, see Pusey's letter, 
p. 82: " We are by baptism brought into a state of 
salvation or justification'' 

Tracts for the Times, vol. i. No. 35, p. 1 : " The 
sacrament of baptism is that by which souls are ad- 
mitted into covenant with God, and without which 
none can enter into the kingdom of heaven." 

Tracts, vol. ii. pp. 12, 13: "That regeneration is in 
scripture connected with baptism ; it is nowhere dis- 
connected from it. Baptism is spoken of as the source 
of our spiritual birth, as no other cause is, save God." 

Tracts, vol. ii., No. 67, p. 14 : " There is no hint that 
regeneration can be obtained in any other way but by 

Tracts, vol. ii., No. 67, pp. 12, 13: "Whosoever has 
been baptized was thereby incorporated into Christ, 
and so being made a portion and member of the Son 
of God, partakes of that sonship and is himself a 


child. So that henceforth the Father looks upon him, 
not as what he is ill himself, but as in, and a part of, 
His well-beloved Son.' 

I might quote much more of the same character, but 
this is sufficient to show what the High Church party 
mean by baptismal regeneration. 

But let us see what Wesley taught about this doc- 
trine. Did he believe and teach the doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration? The following quotations will 
very clearly show that he did not, but opposed it with 
all his power. 

By putting the matter in the form of questions, and 
giving the answer in Wesley's words, a clear under- 
standing of his position can be reached. The quota- 
tions will be taken from his Sermon No. xlv., on 
" The New Birth." 

Question. — What does Wesley mean when he says, 
"By water then, as a means, we are born again?" 

Wesley. — " When an adult heathen was convinced 
that the Jewish religion was of God, and desired to 
join them, it was the custom to baptize him first, be- 
fore he was admitted to circumcision, and when he 
was baptized, he was said to be born again, by which 
they meant that he who tv<t.s before a child of the devil 
ivas novo adapted into the family of God, and accounted 
one of His children.' ' 

Question. — But is this baptism with water, the 
regeneration of the heart, or the new birth of which 
Christ spoke to Nicodemus, when he said, " Ye must 
be born again ?" 

Wesley. — "In the Church catechism, likewise, the 


judgment of our Church is declared with the utmost 
clearness, ' What meanest thou by this word sacrament? 
Answer — I mean an outward and visible sign, of an 
inward and spiritual grace. Question — What is the 
outward part or form in baptism. Answer — Water, 
wherein the person is baptized in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Question — What is the 
inward part or thing signified ? Answer — 'A death 
unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.' Noth- 
ing, therefore, is plaiiier than that, according to the 
Church of England, baptism is not the new birth. 
But, indeed, the reason of the thing is so clear and 
evident as not to need any other authority. For what 
can be more plain than that the one is an external, the 
other an internal work, that the one is visible, the 
other an invisible thing, and, therefore, wholly differ- 
ent from each other — the one being an act of man 
purifying the body, the other a change wrought by 
God in the soul ; so that the former is just as distin- 
guishable from the latter, as the soul from the body, 
water from the Holy Ghost." 

Question — Does Wesley hold and teach that by the 
baptism of water this inward and spiritual grace was 
imparted to him who is baptized, so that he needs no 
further spiritual change, but is truly regenerated, for 
this is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ? 

Wesley — '• But perhaps the sinner to whom in real 

charity we say, ' You must be born again,' has been 

taught to say, ' I defy your new doctrine. I need not 

be born again. I was born again when I was baptized.' 

I answer, thirdly, be you baptized or unbaptized, 


you must be born again ; otherwise it is not possible 
you should be inwardly holy, and without inward, 
as well as outward holiness, you cannot be happy 
even in this world, much less in the world to come. 
Do you say, ' Nay, but I do no harm to any man. I 
am honest and just in all my dealings.' ' But 

you must go further yet, or you cannot be saved ; still 
you must be born again.' Do you add, ' I go farther 
yet ; for I not only do no harm, but do all the good I 
can.' And Wesley replies, ' Yet this does not 

alter the case; still you must be born again. Without 
this nothing will do any good to your poor, sinful, pol- 
luted soul.' ' Nay, but I constantly attend all the 
ordinances of God. I keep to my church and the 
sacrament.' It is well you do ; but all this wdll not 
keep you from hell unless you be born again. None 
of these things will stand in the place of the new 
birth ; no, nor anything under heaven. Let this, 
therefore, if you have not already experienced this 
inward work of God, be your continued prayer, ' Lord, 
add this to all Thy blessings — let me be born again.' " 
^Wesley could not more explicitly deny, and refute 
the doctrines of baptismal regeneration than he has 
done in these extracts. 

But( Cardinal Newman bears testimony to the posi- 
tion of John Wesley on the question of Baptismal 
Regeneration, which is clear and pointed. 

(See Difficulties of Anglicans, vol i., pp. 23 and 24.) 
" Counsel then, and pamphleteers may put forth un- 
answerable arguments in behalf of the Catholic inter- 
pretation of the Baptismal service in vain 


did the eighteenth century use it as a sort of watch- 
ward against Wesley.'' 

This means that the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
tion is a Roman Catholic doctrine ; and secondly, that 
Episcopalians warned people against Wesley and his 
teaching, because he, like ever}' true Protestant and 
loyal Churchman, denied the doctrine of Baptismal 
Regeneration and believed it to be the essence of 

„Xet High Churchmen claim that Wesley held the 
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Regarding the 
views of Wesley on this doctrine in the case of 
infants, I will submit some extracts from the clear, 
cogent and convincing reply written by the Rev. James 
Lawson to the claims put forth by Churchman, alias 
Layman, which I commend to the careful attention of 
those whose views on this matter are not fully formed. 

Mr. Lawson says : " Before dismissing the subject of 
baptismal regeneration, I will add a few more remarks 
on Wesley's teaching concerning it. First, in regard 
to infants, Mr. Wesley says : " Our Church supposes 
that all who are baptized in infancy are at the same 
time born again ; and it is allowed that the whole 
office for the baptism of infants proceeds upon this 

But now, having proven that according to Layman's 
own definition of the word " supposition," the lan- 
guage of Wesley correctly quoted does not prove that 
he held the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, I shall 
offer a few remarks under the "assumption" that 
" supposition " does " undeniably prove." Now, what 


would it prove ? Why, that John Wesley believed 
just what Presbyter and I and every Methodist 
minister most cordially believe, namely, that " when 
an infant is baptized it is at the same time born 
again ; " nay, more, that so far as it is possible for a 
child to be regenerated or born of the Spirit, that the 
day before its baptism it was even then born again, 
and, as Mr. Wesley very properly remarks, " it is 
allowed that the whole office for the baptism of infants 
proceeds upon this 'supposition. 1 " ] Else we would not 
baptise them. We baptize an adult person who has 
not previously been baptized on a profession of his 
faith in Christ, believing he has been already regen- 
erated or born again. We do not believe the water 
baptism regenerates him ; we regard it merely as the 
" outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual 
grace.'' The very words imply that there should first 
be the inward and spiritual grace, before there is the 
outward sign of it. Surely there must be the exist- 
ence of the thing itself before the " sign " signifying 
its existence. As the "inward grace ' is "invisible," 
we have to rely on the profession of the responsible 
subject, but in the case of an infant we make use of 
the "sign with the utmost assurance of the "inward 
grace," believing as we do from scripture in the uni- 
versality of Christ's atonement, and bearing in mind 
the precious words of Jesus in regard to " little child- 
ren," that " of such is the Kingdom of God." But we 
believe those words of Christ refer to each and every 
infant, baptized or unbaptized, otherwise He would 
most assuredly have made a distinction. Where God 


has not put any, we will not dare to do it ; nor have 
we any desire to do so, for as " it is not the will of our 
Father in heaven that one of these little ones should 
perish,' we rejoice in the confidence that no human, 
nor inhuman, invention can overrule His will. 

I will quote one complete paragraph from a letter 
written by Mr. Wesley to a Rev. .Mr. Potter, Church 
of England clergyman, in the year 17")8. He says : 
" You proceed : ' Our holy church doth teach us that, 
by the laver of regeneration in baptism, we are re- 
ceived into the number of the children of God — this is 
the first part of the new birth. What is the first part 
of the new birth ? 'Baptism/! It is the outward sign 
of that inward and spiritual grace; \mt no part of it 
at all. It is impossible it should be. The outward 
sign is no more a part of the inward grace than the 
body is a part of the soul. Or do you mean that re- 
generation is a part of the new birth ? Nay-, this is 
the whole of it. Or is it the laver of regeneration 
which is the first part of it? That cannot be; for 
you suppose this to be the same with baptism.' " 

Now, is it not perfectly clear from all this, that Mr. 
Wesley held the very same views that we now hold 
and preach ? By saying that baptism is not the first 
part of the new birth, as was believed by the clergy- 
man to whom he wrote, it is clear he believed there 
might be the new birth without baptism, as in the 
case of all infants, and by saying, " it forms no part 
of the new birth at all," he clearly shows that one has 
not necessarily anything to do with the other. 

It is not enough that a man be born of water ; he 


must also be "born of the Spirit." Thus did our Saviour 
show to the Jews that their new birth was not sufficient; 
that there might be what they called being " born 
again,'' which was by water, and still be wanting the 
real new birth, wrought only by the Spirit of God. 
With such clear proofs before them, it is impossible 
for candid men to continue to assert that which is so 
completely contradictory to the teaching of Wesley as 
his views, and claim him as a High Churchman. But 
it is again asked, Was not Wesley a High Churchman 
in his early life when a Missionary in Georgia ? and 
did he not, when seventy-two years of age write to 
Lord North, "I am a High Churchman, and a son of a 
High Churchman ? " The explanation of the first is 
found in the fact that, when John Wesley was in 
Georgia, he had not yet been made the subject of con- 
verting grace, and was vainly seeking for acceptance 
with God through the observance of the forms and 
ceremonies of the Church. After his conversion, in 
1738, he was really " a new man in Christ Jesus.' 

Miss Wedgewood, an Episcopalian, in her " John 
Wesley and the Evangelical Reaction of the Eighteenth 
Century,'' puts the case clearly, when she says : 

" Wesley's homeward voyage, in 1738, marks the 
conclusion of his High Church period, his jour- 
nals during this voyage, chronicle for us that deep 
dissatisfaction which is felt whenever an earnest na- 
ture wakes up to the incompleteness of a traditional 
religion ; and his after-life, compared with his two 
years in Georgia, makes it evident that he passed at 
this time into a new spiritual region. There could 


be no more simple expression for this change, than 
conversion,'' etc., pp. 140 and 151. 

When Wesley was converted, or received the new 
birth, his High Churchism lied, according to the testi- 
mony of this Episcopalian writer ; and any student of 
his life will acknowledge the correctness of her posi- 
tion. But why did he write when seventy-two years 
of age, in his letter to Lord North, "I am a High 
Churchman, and the son of a High Churchman," if he 
had abandoned his High Church notions as early as 

It is perfectly clear from Wesley's own words, that he 
used the term High Ch urchman in two entirely different 
senses, one political, the other ecclesiastical. In the 
political struggle, which was then engaging the atten- 
tion of all, Wesley took the side of the King, or monarch- 
ical party, which, as a political part}' he evidently 
recognized as a High Church, or ultra-loyal party ; 
but it is clear that he did not call himself a High 
Churchman in an ecclesiastical sense, from language he 
used in what he termed, A calm address to the in- 
habitants of England," printed two years after his 
letter to Lord North was written. He is here giving 
his opinion of ecclesiastical High Churchmen, and 
from his estimate of them, as here forcibly expressed, 
it is very evident that he had no thought of putting 
himself down as a High Churchman. He says: 

"Do you imagine that there are no High Church- 
men left ? Did they all die with Dr. Sacheveral ? 
Alas, how little do you know of mankind. Were the 
present restraint taken off, you would see them swarm- 


ing on every side, and gnashing upon you with their 
teeth If other Bonners and Gardiners did not 

arise, other Lauds and Sheldons would, who would 
either rule over you with a rod of iron, or drive you 
out of the land." (Wesley's Works, vol. vi., p. 335). 
Who were Laud and Sheldon ? High Churchmen 
must confess that they were true types of the High 
Church party, and are greatly revered by High 
Churchmen to-day. 

We tread on sure ground when we most positively 
affirm that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, 
was not a High Churchman. For three years more 
than half a century were his great energies untiringly 
devoted to the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. * In 
his ministrations he did not tell the sinner that he had 
received the new birth, and had been regenerated, and 
made a member of Christ when the baptismal waters, 
from the sacred hand of a priest in an unbroken line 
from the apostles, had touched his brow ; but he did 
say to such as trusted in this outward ceremony, "Bap- 
tized or unbaptized you must be born again." Nor did 
he teach the members of his societies that an accept- 
ance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper necessarily 
brought Christ into the heart, but his clear and 
earnest declaration ever was, " Repent of and forsake 
your sins, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, with 
a heart unto righteousness, and you shall be saved." 

Instead of frittering away his time in an imitation 
of Romish ceremonies before a tinselled altar, with 
bowings and genuflexions abundant, John Wesley was 
preaching the Gospel to the poor at five in the room- 


ing, in some unadorned chapel, or in some open field ; 
and instead of holding a material crucifix before the 
eye of the worshipper, he held up a present and living 
Saviour, to be seen only by the eye of faith, and bade 
the penitent sinner to thus behold Him and live. 

It was only because of the spirit of which he was 
possessed that he pursued that course in his ministry 
which caused the Church to " force him into a camp 
of bis own," as is said of him by a Church of England 

Place the evangelical, practical, earnest John Wesley 
in High Church trammels, and again we see a Samson 
bound with the ropes of the Philistines, who but 
stretches out his arms and the cords break as threads. 
Put the spirit of John Wesley in High Church bottles, 
and again we see illustrated the folly of putting new 
wine into old and shrivelled bottles. So far from 
being a High Churchman, which is the narrowest of 
the parties into which the Church of England is 
divided, John Wesley was so evangelical that the 
widest freedom of the State Church was too narrow 
for his Christian effort, and he was forced to stand 
outside the boundaries which limit the efforts of an 
obedient son of the Church. 

r^The Lives of Wesley contain many incidental refer- 
ences to his modes of work, which fully refute the 
claim that he was a High Churchman which, in later 
years, is put forth by the Anglicans. 

These testimonies give evidence of the most valu- 
able kind, inasmuch as while they entirely free him 
from any suspicion of High Churchism, they are given 


by men who were unconscious that the position which 
their words overturn, would ever be taken; and that the 
man whose whole life was a living and earnest protest 
against sacramentarian teaching should in any age, 
however distant, be held up as an example of it, was 
evidently a thought which never entered the minds 
of his most intimate fellow-workers. When describing 
Wesley's career during the last years of his life, 
two of his most intimate friends, Dr. Coke and 
Henry Moore, say, in the authentic biography which 
they wrote : " He saw continually more and more of 
the fruit of his labor, and of the labor of those in con- 
nection with him. He laid no stress on opinions or 
■modes of worship, desiring only that the love of God 
and man, through living faith in Christ as God mani- 
fest in the flesh, would be the ruling principle of the 
life, and show itself by a uniform practice of justice, 
mercy, and truth. He accordingly gave the right 
hand of fellowship to all who walked by this rale, 
however they might differ from him in those specula- 
tive points of which they are to give an account to 
God alone." (See pp. 308 and 309). 

Could this plain and truthful description of the 
evangelical character of John Wesley's methods of 
working have been written if he had been a High 
Churchman, holding as they do to salvation through 
the sacraments, and eternal life through a strict ob- 
servance and practice of a prescribed and fixed ritual, 
while Wesley " laid no stress on tlie modes of worship." 
It is due to the memory of the great and good Wesley 
that he should not lie under the false charge of being 


a High Churchman, and his writings and life-work 
furnish abundant proof of the falsity of the assertion. 
The gross absurdity of the claim that John Wesley 
was a High Churchman is manifest, when we look at 
the methods he took to spread the Gospel ; not one 
feature of High Churchism being found in the labors 
of the preachers whom he sent forth, and whose labors 
he approved. "If he believed in salvation by the sac- 
raments, as High Churchism teaches, it is passing 
strange that he never demanded that his preachers 
should teach it ; and equally strange that the great 
Church of which he was the founder and architect, 
was in his day, and is to the present, one of the most 
powerful and successful opponents of sacramentarian 
theology. iHe who affirms that John Wesley, as the 
founder of Methodism was a High Churchman, for- 
feits his claim to more than the most superficial 
knowledge of Wesley's theology, or his right to be 
esteemed as a candid investigator. 


What was the Origin of the Church of England? 

" T17HY herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know 
T V not from hence he is, and yet he hath opened 
my eyes," were the words which expressed the wonder 
of the man who was born blind when the Jews dis- 
puted about the personality of Him who had performed 
the miracle. He thought that such wise men as they 
should know without any doubt one who could per- 
form such a wondrous cure. Still greater astonish- 
ment is not unreasonable when the savants of the 
Church of England give such contradictory and irre- 
concilable accounts of the origin of their sect. If 
there be any fact of a church's history of which we 
have a right to expect a clear and positive statement, 
it is of its origin. 

Of the origin of the Church of England, however, 
there is in the Church itself such diversity of opinion 
as is not reconcilable with a pure and simple desire to 
present the real facts upon which the question rests. 
I will here state a few of these fanciful theories, and 
test their claims to acceptance. We are told by Strype, 
in his Life of Parker, that the Queen's Council in- 
structed Archbishop Parker to answer Calvin's letter, 


in which he proposed a union of all Protestants, in 
the following words : that " They liked his proposals, 
which were fair and desirable ; yet as to the govern- 
ment of the Church, to signify to him that the Church 
of England would still retain her episcopacy ; but not 
as from Pope Gregory, who sent over Augustine the 
monk hither, but from Joseph of Arimathea, as ap- 
peared by Gildas, printed first A.D. 1525, in the reign 
of Henry VIII.; and so far from agreeing to Eleu- 
therius, sometime Bishop of Rome, who acknowledged 
Lucius, King of Britain, Christ's vicar within his own 
dominions." (See Life of Muff hew Parker, by John 
Strype, II. A., book ii., chap. 2.) Another view of 
an ancient church in Britain is expressed by a High 
Church writer thus: "The fact is, that the Anglican 
Church was founded in Britain in apostolic times, and 
probably by St. Paul himself. She has had a con- 
tinuous organic life from that time to the present 
day.'' (Methodism v. The Church, p. 59.) 

Or still another and positively contradictory theory, 
as held by another sect in the High Church party, 
and presented by Canon Venables in the article on 
Episcopac3 r , in the last edition of the Encyclopwdia 
Britannica, p. 480, where he says : "In England the 
primitive Church, by whomsoever founded (the East- 
ern theory is certainly baseless), was undoubtedly 
episcopal. With the ancient British Church, however, 
the later episcopacy of England has no connection. The 
existing Church of England is the lineal descendant 
of that planted in Kent by St. Augustine at the end 
of the sixth century." 


This Eastern theory, which Canon Venables says 
" is certainly baseless," is the theory out of which, 
with modifications, the two previous schemes were 

There is still another theory which, although in 
fullest accord with all reliable history and reason, is 
rejected by High Churchmen, which is, that the present 
Church of England had its origin in the great religious 
upheaval which began when Henry VI II. shook off 
the papal yoke, repudiated the Pope's spiritual and 
temporal authority, and declared himself the supreme 
earthly head of the Church "in all things and causes 
spiritual, as well as temporal." 

We will examine these theories in the order in 
which they are here presented, and test their claims 
to our belief. 

The existence of the ancient British Church, with 
its succession from Joseph of Arimathea, from St. Paul, 
or Pudens, or from St. John, will be first tested. That 
the Christian faith was preached in Britain at an 
early date, and that it was accepted by a portion of 
the people, will be readily admitted ; but that admis- 
sion does not cover the question at issue, nor establish 
the claim which is disputed. 

The real question, and that upon which the validity 
of the orders of the ministry of the Episcopal Church 
of to-day rests, according to this theory, is : — Was 
there a Christian Church founded in Britain in the 
days of the apostles having the episcopal form of gov- 
ernment, and governed by apostles of our Lord, who 
communicated their apostolic powers to their sue- 


cessors, who in turn handed them down till they have 
descended to the bishops in the Church of England of 
to-day, in a direct and unbroken line, called apostolic 
succession ? 

Here it should be said that this pretension is such 
an arrant absurdity, and so contradictory to history, 
that an apology is necessary for seriously considering 
it. That apology is found in the unblushing effrontery 
with which High Churchmen, by totally ignoring his- 
tory, repeat, from year to year, this fancy of a deluded 
brain with all the appearance of confidence in its 
truthfulness that honest convictions should supply. 
The testimony of historians, secular and ecclesiastical, 
will be presented. 

Before we proceed, it will be necessary, in order to 
have a clear understanding of the question, to state the 
reasons by which the High Churchmen are influenced 
in their efforts to establish their lineal descent, either 
from an ancient British Church founded in apostolic 
times, or from the Romish Church through Augustine, 
and the Papal Church he founded in Britain, A.D. 

High Churchmen hold that the episcopal form of 
government is the only scriptural form, and that 
the true Church of Christ has ever had that form; 
and further, that to maintain in unbroken connection 
such a form it is necessary, and has been provided for 
by the Great Head of the Church, that an unbroken 
line of succession of apostles be maintained from the 
original band of apostles down to the present day. 
Now, in order to prove that they possess episcopacy 


and apostolic succession, which mutually interlace, it is 
necessary that they be in such an unbroken line of 
succession, hence, closing their eyes to the most fully 
attested and palpable facts of history, they start out 
to devise schemes to establish the validity of their 
claim. It is necessary first to establish the continued, 
constant and unbroken church existence; and secondly, 
that they had the episcopal form with an unbroken 
line in apostolic descent. These points will receive 
attention, and the declarations of history will be sub- 
mitted as evidence. Concerning this evidence, it may 
be said: It will show, 1st. That the present Church 
of England was not "foundud in Britain in apostolic 
times ; " and that no ancient British Church has 
" had a continuous organic life from that time to the 
present day." 

2nd. It will prove that no line of apostolic succes- 
sion from an ancient British Church could possibly 
have been preserved through the 800 years between 
the founding of the Papacy in England, in 596, and 
1533, when Henry revolted from Rome; for this 
reason, that the Church in England during these eight 
hundred years was thoroughly papal, and all her 
bishops during these years, got their orders from the 
Pope of Rome, and were the sworn supporters of the 
Pope of Rome, hence no apostolic succession through 
bishops outside of these Romish bishops was in any 
sense even possible, thus proving that if the Church 
of England has any claim whatever to an apostolic 
line of succession, it must necessarily be through the 
Church of Rome, and not through an ancient British 


3rd. It will prove that, up to the time of Henry's 
revolt, the Church in England was completely popish, 
and acknowledged unhesitatingly the Pope's spiritual 
supremacy, therefore no ancient British Church line 
of succession had an existence then. 

And 4th. It will throw light upon the circumstances 
connected with the consecration of the first archbishop 
appointed by the authority of the new Church, in the 
reign of Elizabeth, viz.: Archbishop Parker, and test 
the strength of their claim to a valid succession 
through Rome, which is the only possible chance left 

The impossibility of possessing a church autonomy, 
and of tracing a line of apostolic succession from an 
ancient British Church, arises from two causes. 

1st. 'Dure is no historical proof that there ivas an 
ancient British Church with an apostolic line of suc- 
cession. In fact, the testimony of history is in favor 
of the presbyterial form of government in the ancient 
British Church, and it is clear that with them presby- 
ters and bishops were one order, and that presbyters 
ordained, as I will show further on, by the re-ordina- 
tion of Bishop Chad by Archbishop Theodore. 

2nd. Even if they could prove that an apostolic 
line of succession existed in an ancient British Church, 
I will show it was obliterated early, for, to use the 
words of the historian Knight, " during two centuries 
the Christian creed was entirely swept away by 
Saxon heathendom.' This was before the year A.D. 
400. The Christian faith was retained by individuals 
who, after a time gathered together and formed them- 


selves into churches, on the pres.byterial form, and in 
596-7, Pope Gregory I., sent one of his Benedic- 
tine monks, named Austin, or Augustine, with forty 
other monks, to Britain, and formally planted the 
Christian faith on the Romish or Episcopal model. 
He was succeeded in 6G8 by Theodore, Archbishop of 
Canterbury, others having intervened, and to him as 
the representative of the Pope of Rome all the bishops 
in Britain submitted. They abandoned all thought 
of any other ecclesiastical authority than that of 
Rome, gave up their presb}'terial form of govern- 
ment, and he " reditc&f everythivy to a perfect con- 
formity to the Church of Rome.'' See Henry's History 
of Great Britain, vol. iii. p. 207. The Church in 
England remained in this perfect conformity ecclesias- 
tically to the Church of Rome till 1533, under Hcnry 
VIII, that is, the Church in England was in per- 
fect conformity to the Church of Rome for a term of 
eight hundred and sixty-rive years. Where was the 
ancient British Church all this time ? The irregular 
forces which composed it were absorbed completely 
by Rome in 6GS, and then the ancient British Church 
ceased to exist. I shall now proceed to prove this 
from historical evidence. 

High Churchmen say : " The fact is, that the Angli- 
can Church was founded in Britain in apostolic times, 
and probably by St. Paul himself. She has had a 
continuous organic life to this day.' 

And what proof do they give for this huge assump- 
tion ? 

Their most astounding argument is, that a lease 


given in the time of Alfred was given in the name of 
the " Ecclesia Anglicana," and that when tliis lease ex- 
pired a few years since the property reverted to the 
English Church. 

They must not presume too far on the ignorance of 
their readers. Nearly every schoolboy knows that 
Henry VIII. seized the property of the Roman Cath- 
olic Church in England, keeping a part for himself, 
and giving valuable possessions to the new Church he 
was establishing, and even- one who has read Eng- 
lish history, knows what a tumult was raised when he 
did it. Have High Churchmen never read of the Act 
passed in 1539, in Henry's reign, called "The Act for 
the Dissolution of Abbeys.' Do they not know that 
in less than five years, two hundred and eighty-one 
religious houses were forced to surrender their posses- 
sions ? 

The words of the historian Knight are, "The govern- 
ment adopted the principle of terrifying or cajoling 
the abbots and priors into a surrender of their posses- 
sions.'' This was the way the new Church of Eng- 
land inherited the property of the old Romish Church 
of England, and this identical lease of which High 
Churchmen write, was, at the time that Henry began 
to despoil the Church of Rome of her property, in 
the possession of, and the undisputed property of, the 
Church of Rome, then established in England. 

But, I will now adduce the testimony of history to 
prove that the claim that the present Church of Eng- 
land has had a continuous organic life since apostolic 
times, is absolutely unhistorical. 


See Aubrey's History of England, vol. i., pp. 40 and 

" It has been remarked, that the claims advanced by 
most ecclesiastical historians for the existence of an 
early British Church, must, for lack of conclusive evi- 
dence, be treated as a figment, — very beautiful, but 
very unreal. Divested of the polemical passions which 
have been excited in connection with the subject, alike 
on the part of Romanists and Protestants, the question 
of how Christianity was first introduced into Britain 
cannot be satisfactorily answered ; and on a calm 
judicial survey, the less that is said about a British 
Church during the first five centuries of the Christian 
era, in the modern acceptation of the term Church, 
the better for all parties. Notwithstanding the 

high respect properly felt for great names such as 
Stillingfleet, Usher, Collier, Fuller, and other ecclesi- 
astical historians, a strict regard to truth and to the 
face of evidence, does not allow of the popular and 
pretty theory, of a primitive British Church being ad- 
mitted, until decisive testimony can be found clearer 
and less fragmentary than that upon which the theory 
has hitherto been made to rest/' 

See also History of England, by Charles Knight, 
vol. i., pp. 16 and 17. 

Does this historian believe that St. Paul founded 
the Anglican Church in England ? 

Knight saj T s of the period about about A.D. 337 : 
" We have no record during this period. of 

the Christian worship." Where was the Church 
founded by St. Paul ? And again, " during two cen~ 


turies the Christian creed was entirely swept away by 
Saxon healhewhui. Where was this "Angli- 

can Church founded in apostolic times," and which 
High Churchmen say, " has had a continuous organic 
life to this day,'' during these two centuries when the 
Christian creed was " entirely swept aivay by Saxon 
heathendom.' Could anj r pretensions be more pre- 
posterous and more contradictory to history ? " 

Again, in A Short History of the English, People, 
p. 29, by the Rev. John Richard Green, an Episcopalian 
historian, we find him say of this ancient British 
Church : " But in Britain the priesthood and the 
people had been exterminated together. When Theo- 
dore came to organize the Church of England, the very 
memory of the older Christian Church, which existed 
in Roman Britain, had passed away." 

Again, the words of Canon Venables occur to the 
mind, when he says, " With the ancient British. Church, 
however, the later Episcopacy of England has no con- 

The constant contradictions between the High 
Church champions confuse their readers, for some 
claim that their only right to holy orders is through 
this ancient British Church, but those at all familiar 
with history know the inherent worthlessness of this 
unhistorical pretension. 

These and many more proofs, with which history is 
replete, prove clearly that when Augustine came to 
Britain, A.D. 50G, there was no organized Christian 
Church existing there. But though unsupported by his- 
torical evidence,High Churchmen have devised a scheme 


whereby they hope to link ihe living present with the 
dead past by means of a chain forged out of their 
fruitful fancies. We are coolly asked to believe that 
this ancient British Church had a line of holy orders 
direct from Joseph of Arimathea, St. Paul, Pudens, or 
some one else, they are not quite sure who ; that the}', 
amid all the troubles whici compassed them 'for cen- 
turies, preserved it without a break in the succession ; 
and, still further, that even over the two centuries, 
during which the Christian Church was entirely swept 
away, this wondrous succession made a miraculous 
leap, and reappeared in full authori ty and force in the 
scattered individual believers in Christianity who 
were found in the succeeding age. But their demands 
on our credulity are not yet exhausted. They ask 
us to believe that though the Roman faith and forms 
were planted in Britain in 596, and held .sovereign 
and unquestioned spiritual sway till 1533, that all 
through these more than nine hundred years of papal 
rule the line of apostolic succession, which they say 
was possessed by the ancient British Church, was 
preserved intact and uninjured, though buried under 
papal domination during these weary centuries only 
to appear when Archbishop Parker was consecrated 
archbishop, and through him to descend to earth's 
remotest people. 

Again, the boldness with which this assertion is 
made must be plead as the excuse for exposing it. 

I will now show that even if the testimony of his- 
tory did not prove that there was no ancient British 
Church continued down to the establishment of the 


papacy in England by Augustine, A.D. 596-7, yet that 
soon after Augustine formed the Papa! Church in 
Britain it completely absorbed the scattered bands of 
Christians, and that they all submitted entirely to 
Rome, and became so perfectly assimilated to the Papal 
Church that it was an absolute impossibility that a line 
of succession, apart from that of Rome, could exist in 
the Papal Church in England, and for this reason: At the 
threshold of his office every bishop was confronted with, 
and made to swear, an oath which completely severed 
any connection with any other succession and bound him 
to Rome ; and further, this condition existed for more 
than nine hundred years after the extinction of the 
last fragments of a Church of ancient British Chris- 
tians. To prove this I will give the form of oath taken 
by every bishop during the centuries the Papal Church 
held sway in Britain. It was as follows: "I, N., 
bishop of N., from this hour henceforth, will be faith- 
ful and obedient to blessed St. Peter, and to the Holy 
Apostolic Church of Home and to my Lord A. the 
Pope. To the retaining, and maintaining, the 

Papicy of Rome, and the regalities of St. Peter, I 
shall be aider (so mine order be saved)' against all 
persons, etc., so God help me, and these holy Gospels 
of God." This destroys all lines of succession except 
the Roman, wherever the oath was taken, and it was 
taken by every bishop in the Church of England from 
A.D. 668 till AD. 1533, when Henry VIII. broke the 
papal yoke. 

This, it will be seen at a glance, made the Church in 
England thoroughly and completely papal, in theory 


at least, and as a system positively excluded the pos- 
sibility of perpetuating any line of succession in the 
bishops who took this oath, except the Romish. But 
it may be claimed that it did not in fact have this 
effect, for this is the only conceivable defence of the 
position taken by High Churchmen who claim to have 
a line through the Romish Church of England apart 
from the papal line. 

I shall, therefore, now show that: The Church which 
was begun by St. Augustine in A.D. 596, and then 
more fully and perfectly established by Archbishop 
Theodore, in A.D. 668, was a Papal Church in every 
sense of the word, as an ecclesiastical body ; and that 
it continued to be papal till the revolt under Henry 
VIII.; and further, that this Papal Church was the 
only Church in, or of, England, in existence fin- more 
thin 800 years; proving beyond all possibility of 
error that the Church of England can only claim to 
have derived its orders from the Church of Rome. 

This may be thouglit unnecessary, but in view of 
the hardihood and shamelessness with which the High 
Church party endeavor to deny and affirm matters of 
history as it suits their purpose, it becomes necessary 
to place historical facts with crushing weight. 

Mosheim's History, vol. i., p. 398 : " While the 
king was in this favorable disposition Gregory the 
Great sent into Britain, A.D. 596, forty Bendictine 
monks, with Augustine at their head, in order to bring 
to perfection what the pious queen had so happily 
begun. This monk laid aneiv the founda- 

tions of the British Church." 


This conclusively proves, without a word of com- 
ment : 1st. That the foundations of the British Church 
were laid anew in A.D. 696. 2nd. That they were 
laid by men who obtained their power from Pope 
Gregory I. And 3rd, that Augustine, the monk of 
the order of St. Benedict at Rome, was invested with 
chief power in England by the Pope, and that he was 
the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Then there is no 
pretence of any change till the time of Henry VIII., 
when the Cliurch of England separated from the 
Church of Bome. 

But our High Church friends claim they have a 
line of ordination outside the papal, because Augustine 
was consecrated by the Archbishop of Aries. 

To save the trouble of touching it again I will sub- 
mit evidence that the Archbishop of Aries got his 
authority from Bome, and that he acknowledged the 
Bope's supremacy, and the Bope recognized him in 

Moshiem, same vol. p. 193: "About the same time 
he (Augustine) sent two of his companions to Bome to 
acquaint St. Gregory with the joyful tidings of the 
conversion of England. Gregory received the 

news of Austin's success in England with great joy, 
and sent a valuable present of books, vest- 
ments, sacred utensils," etc. 

See also Bede's Eccl. Hist., book i., chap. 29, for the 
same fact. But more on this point. See Apostolic 
Succession, by Bishop Byan, second part page 7 : 
" The sec of Aries was founded by bishops sent directly 
from Bome. St. Trophimus, its first bishop, was sent, 


according to St. Gregory of Tours, from Rome to 
Aries in the year 250," etc. 

And quoting from -Alzog's Universal Church His- 
tory, the author adds : " It is a matter well known to 
all Gaul, and to the Holy Roman Church, that Aries, 
the first city of Gaul, has the honor of having received 
the faith from St. Peter, through Bishop Trophimus.'' 
And then he makes the following comment : 
"Whether the translator's learned observations will 
convince the reader that Aries owes its foundation to 
the Prince of the Apostles, or not, the discussion proves 
conclusively that Aries does not derive its succession, 
its orders, or its mission from Lyons, or from Ephesus, 
but from Rome.'' 

But to proceed with my quotations to prove that 
the Church founded by the Pope when he sent Augus- 
tine, the Benedictine monk, to Britain in 596, still con- 
tinued to bow to his spiritual authority. 

See the History of Great Britain, 3rd ed. by Rev. 
R.Henry, D.D., vol. iii., p. 191: "With this view he 
(Pope Gregory) appointed Austin, or Augustine, a 
monk of the convent of St. Andrew, at Rome, with 
forty other monks, to go to England, and endeavor to 
bring the people of that country to the knowledge and 
profession of Christianity.'' 

See p. 195: "Austin after he had failed in his 
attempt to bring the British churches under his au- 
thority, applied himself to enlarge and regulate the 
Church of England." 

The clergy whom Augustine found in England on 
his arrival there refused to acknowledge the authority 


of the Pope, because Augustine did not rise from his 
seat in the council as they approached, which they 
took as a sign they should reject his authority as an 
archbishop appointed by the Pope. But we will see 
they soon bowed to the Pope's authority completely. 

See pp. 206-7 of same volume : " Vitalian, who then 
filled the Papal chair, made choice of one Theodore, 
and consecrated him Archbishop of Canterbury. Theo- 
dore set out for England, where he arrived May, 669. 
Soon after his arrival the new Archbishop 
visited all the English churches, consecrated bishops 
where they were wanting, and reduced everything to 
a perfect conformity to the Church of Home." " Still 
further, to consolidate this union of the English 
Churches with each other, and with the Church of 
Rome, Theodore summoned a council of the English 
bishops, with the chief of their clergy, to meet at 
Hartford, A.D. 673. Theodore, who presided 

at this synod, produced a copy of the Canons which 
he had brought with him from Rome, and pointed out 
ten of them which were peculiarly necessary to be ob- 
served in order to establish a perfect uniformity among 
all the English Churches; to all of which he demanded 
and obtained the consent of all the members." 

See Ency. Brit., Popedom, p. 494 : " In England the 
resistance offered by the representatives of the British 
Church was soon overcome, and from the time of the 
Council of Whitby, A.D. 664, the teachings and tradi- 
tions of Gregory, as enforced by Augustin, Theodore, 
Wilfred, and others found ready acceptance, 
and a spirit of filial, though far from a slavish, devo- 
votion to Home was everywhere created." 


Then it is said by Canon Venables of this Church 
in which & filial devotion to Rome existed everywhere: 
That " the existing Church of England is the lineal 
descendant of that planted in Kent by St. Augustin, 
in the end of the 6th century.'' (See Ency. Brit, Art. 
Epis, p. 489). 

Hence the present English Church is descended 
from Rome. But, (see Art. on England, pp. 370-71), 
again where these words occur : " In 668 Theodore, a 
Greek, was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury by 
Pope Vitalian. Nearly the whole of the island was 
now Christian, and all parts of it recognized and sub- 
mited to Archbishop Theodore." "Thus 

Archbishop Theodore may be said to have been 
the founder of the national church of england." 

Let me ask, who is it that is the founder of the NA- 
TIONAL Church of England ? Canon Perry, in the 
Ency. Brit., answers : " Archbishop Theodore, who 
was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury by 
Pope Vitalian.' 

Now, is any more proof wanted that the Church of 
England before the Reformation, had a Romish suc- 
cession, and nothing but a Romish succession, accord- 
ing to their own testimony, for the succession brought 
by Theodore and Augustine, was Romish, pure and 

The testimony of the Venerable Bede, whose Eccle- 
siastical History of England is the first that has any 
real claim to a fair degree of accuracy, which was 
written about A.D. 730, proves beyond all possibility 
of reasonable doubt that the Church of England was 


papal, and had its orders from Rome through Arch- 
bishop Theodore. 

See book iv. ch. 1 : " He, Theodore, was ordained by 
Pope Vitalian in the year of our Lord, 668, on Sunday, 
the 26th of March, and on the 27th of May was sent 
with Hadrian into Britain." 

Then in chap. 2 : " This was the first archbishop 
whom all the English Church obeyed." Query: When 
all obeyed the Pope and owned his supremacy, where 
was the old British Church line ? " Theodore, 

visiting all parts, ordained bishops in proper places, 
and with their assistance corrected such things as he 
found faulty. Among the rest he upbraided 

Bishop Chad that he had not been duly cortsecrated 
and he himself completed his ordination 
after the Catholic manner.'' (Bede, book iv. chap. 2.) 

Thus far the evidence submitted fronvthe historians 
quoted proves — 1st. That the Church founded in A.D. 
596-7 by Augustine was a Papal Church. 2nd. That 
the irregular Christian forces which existed in Britain 
when Augustine arrived in 596-7, which High Church- 
men call the ancient British Church, were completely 
swallowed by, and absorbed into, the Romish Church, 
in A.D. 668, when under Archbishop Theodore, " all 
things were reduced to perfect conformity to Rome." 
As this ancient British Church was perfectly absorbed 
by Rome, we will next show that the only Church 
in England at the time of the revolt of Henry VIII. 
in 1533, was a Romish or Papal Church, and that it 
was the only Church in England at that time that 
even pretended to have an apostolic line of succession, 


and that, therefore, any line of apostolic succession 
which the new Church of England could possibly 
claim must be through the Romish succession. In 
other words I will prove that the I'apal Church in 
England, founded in A.D. 596, remained the same 
Papal Church till lu.'i-'i, and as it was from this Church 
that the present Church of England derived its orders, 
they therefore got their orders from Rome, if they 
have any. 


Did the Papal Church founded in Britain in 596-7 
remain a Papal Church till the time of Henry the 

HISTORY affords ample proof that the Romish 
Church in England held undisputed sway in 
spiritual matters as a church organization from the 
date of her consolidation in A.D. 668 by Theodore, till 
Henry VIII. threw off the thraldom to which the kings 
of England had been for centuries subject. This entire 
supremacy in things spiritual proves, if it be estab- 
lished, that it was an impossibility that any other 
church authority than that of Rome was, or could 
have been, exercised during nearly 900 years, thus 
entirely excluding the believers in apostolic succession 
from all hope of a line from an ancient British Church 
on the one hand and binding them on the other hand 
to hope only in the Church of Rome for a continued 
line of succession from the Apostles. I will also show 
that the claim to a succession through Rome has been 
and is still held by the Church of England. Sufficient 
historical evidence has already been given to prove 
beyond doubt that tne Church of England founded in 


A.D. 596-7, by Augustine, and " reduced to perfect 
conformity to the Church of Rome, in 068, by Arch- 
bishop Theodore, was a Papal Church, and made no 
pretensions to any other than Romish spiritual au- 
thority. Now, I will by equally undeniable historical 
proof show that this identical Roman Church in 
England remained a Papal Church for 865 years after 
Augustine founded it, i.e., till loSo, and was a purely 
Papal Church when Henry VIII. revolted, and began 
the movement which resulted in the formation of the 
new church. I will point out some of the differences 
between the old Papal English Church, which was the 
established church before 1 583, and the new protes- 
tant English Church which then arose. 

1st. The bishops of the old Papal English Church 
acknowledged the Pope as the spiritual and temporal 
head of the Church; while the bishops of the new Pro- 
testant English Church swore they acknowledged the 
King, or Queen of England as spiritual, or temporal 

2. The old Papal English Church taught apostolic 
succession, baptismal regeneration, that Christ's body 
and blood were actually present in the sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper, and confession of sins to a priest 
who could absolve the penitent ; while the new Pro- 
testant English Church denied one and all of these 
pernicious heresies. 

In other words, the new Protestant Church had a 
new spiritual and temporal head, new forms of wor- 
ship and a new creed. This was not simply " the 
washing of a soiled faced," but a new existence. 


We ask, is this not essentially and actually a new 
Church ? But we are told the new Church inherited 
the property of the old Church. We ask, how did she 
get it ? Neither by purchase, nor by gift, nor by in- 
heritance. If by inheritance, then she is the daughter 
of Rome ! But the truth is that in none of these 
ways did she become possessed of the property of the 
Papal English Church, hut by Acts of Parliament 
without even pretending to give an equivalent. 

Listen to what Hallam, the calm judicial historian, 
says of the method Henry VIII. took to cause the 
present English Church to " inherit," as High Church- 
men say, the property of the old " Ecclesia Anglicana.'' 
Hallam says : " It in indeed impossible to feel too muck 
indignation at the spirit in which these proceedings 
were conducted." (See page 67, Constitutional Hist, 
of England.) 

Thus, this property of the old Church was " inher- 
ited^ the lease in Alfred's time, of which High Church- 
men speak, and all the rest. The less they say about 
the present Episcopalian body inheriting the property 
of the old Church which owned it before the Reforma- 
tion, the better for their reputation as students of 

And again, on p. 69, Hallam says : " But if the 
participation of so many persons in the spoils of eccle- 
siastical property gave stability to the new religion,'' 
etc. Spoils of what ecclesiastical property ? 

Answer. — The property of the ecclesiastical estab- 
lishment from which it was taken, which was the old 
Romish Church in England. 


Another question. To what "new religion did it 
give stability? " 

Answer. — The " new religion ' of the new Protest- 
ant Church of England which, as High Churchmen 
say, " inherited the possessions of the old Church.' 

What about an ancient British Church now in the 
light of history? The plea was that the old Church 
had not a moral right to these properties, and the 
Parliament under the King's direction managed the 
transfer of the property of the old Papa), to the new 
Protestant Church quite readily. The Romanists then, 
and now, affirm it was spoliation. There is no argu- 
ment then, in the possession of the property of the old 
Papal Church of England. I have referred to this in 
my former letter, and shown how the new Church got 
it. I will now proceed with the proof that the old 
Papal Church, which existed down to 1533, was 
thoroughly and perfeitly Papal, and only Papal, at 
the time when Henry VIII. revolted, and that the new 
Protestant Church was not simply the old Papal Church 
after it washed its soiled and spotted face, and as it 
was from this Papal Church the new Church obtained 
all the holy orders she ever got, she must have ob- 
tained them through the Roman line of Apostolic 

Here I will call attention to an important matter in 
this discussion. The High Church party tell us of the 
resistance of the Church of England to the Pope's 
power before the Reformation, and try to prove that 
the Church did not acknowledge the spiritual suprem- 
acy of the Pope. 


Let it be noticed that the quotations prove that the 
Church in England did fully acknowledge the spiritual 
supremacy of the Pope of Rome before the revolt un- 
der Henry VIII. and that without questioning it. 
Where there was any resistance to his authority and 
any denial of his supremacy it was not his spiritual 
authority and supremacy, but his supreme authority 
in temporal matters that was disputed. 

See Neat's History of the Puritans, vol. i., p. 1 : 
" William the Conqueror having got possession of the 
Crown of England by the assistance of Rome, and 
King John having afterwards sold it, in his wars with 
the barons; the rights and privileges of. the English 
clergy were delivered into the hands of the Pope who 
taxed them at his pleasure, and in time drained the 
kingdom of immense treasures ; for besides oil his other 
dues he extorted large sums from the clergy for their 
preferments in the Church. 

This proves that the Pope had control of the English 
clergy in secular matters, in addition to his spiritual 
supremacy, as early as the 11th century. 

In order to place beyond all possibility of reason- 
able denial that the spiritual supremacy of the Pope 
was acknowledged fully in the English Church before 
the Reformation, and that the resistance which occa- 
sionally manifested itself was solely against his claim 
to temporal authority, I will quote from Hal lam again. 

Speaking of Henry VIII he says : " Henry, how- 
ever, still advanced very cautiously ; and on the death 
of Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, not long be- 
fore this time, applied to Rome for the usual bulls on 


behalf of Cranmer, whom he nominated to the vacant 
see. These wore the last bulls obtained, and probably 
the last of any exercise of the Papal suprem- 
acy in the reign. An act followed in the next session 
that bishops, elected by their chapter on a royal re- 
commendation, should be consecrated, and archbishops 
receive the pall without sueing for the Pope's bulls. 
All dispensations and licenses hitherto granted by that 
court were set aside by another statute, and the power 
of issuing them in lawful cases transferred to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. The King is in this Act 
recited to be the .supreme head of the Church of 
England, as the clergy had two years before acknow- 
ledged in convocation. But this title was not formally 
declared by Parliament to appertain to the crown till 
the ensuing session of Parliament. 

" By these means was the Church of England alto- 
gether emancipated from the superiority of that of 
Borne. For as the Pope's merely spiritual primacy 
and authority in matters of faith which are, or at least 
were, defended by Catholics of the Gallican or Cis- 
alpine school on quite different grounds from his jur- 
isdiction or legislative power, in points of discipline, 
they seem to have attracted little peculiar attention at 
the time, and to have dropped off as a dead branch, 
when the axe had lopped the fibres that gave it 
nourishment." — (Hallam's Const. Hist. Eng., p. 61.) 

This shows clearly that it was to the claim of the 
Pope to "jurisdiction, or legislative power in point of 
discipline," that opposition was raised, and not to his 
claim as the true successor of St. Peter and supreme 
head of the Church on earth. 


I shall not notice further the resistance to the tem- 
poral power of the Pope, which did at times assert 
itself, for this is not the question at issue ; yet in order 
to render any attempt abortive that may be made to 
prove that the Church in England before 1533 was 
not under Papal supremacy because there were in- 
stances in which resistance manifested itself, I will ask 
that in every instance in which there was any resist- 
ance of the Pope's authority the reader will search the 
matter when he will find that it was not the spiritual, 
or churchly power that was denied, but the temporal 
power of the Pope that was resisted. He was acknow- 
ledged as the spiritual head of the English Church 
till Henry VIII. claimed that supremacy for himself. 

We will come down to about 800 years after the 
founding of the Church by Augustine in A.D. 596, and 
show from equally undeniable historical proofs that 
the Church of England remained Roman, and 
thoroughly Roman, till the beginning of the present 
Church of England under Henry VIII. 

See Hallam's Const. Hist, of K-ng., p. 60 : " The 
clergy however felt themselves to be the weaker party. 
Many of that body were staggered at the 
unexpected introduction of a title that seemed to 
strike at the supremacy they had always acknowledged 
in the Roman See.'' The clergy here spoken of were 
the clergy of the Church in England, who had always, 
according to Hallam, acknowledged the supremacy of 
the Roman See. 

Same work, p. 59 : " The parliament which met im- 
mediately afterwards (that was 1529) was continued 


through several sessions, an unusual thing, till it com- 
pleted the separation- of this kingdom from the su- 
premacy of Rome.'' The Church was, therefore, be- 
fore this separation purely a Papal Church in England. 

P. 62 : " The main body of the clergy were certainly 
very reluctant to tear themselves, at the pleasure of a 
disappointed monarch, in the most dangerous crisis of 
religion, from the bosom of catholic unify. 

What clergy were in the bosom of catholic unity 
when Henry VII E. broke off from the Papacy ? An- 
swer — The clergy of the Church in England. 

What more proof is needed of the fact that the 
Church in England was at that time fully Roman 
Catholic without a trace of the old British Church 
in it? 

But it is abundant. See History of England, 
William Douglas Hamilton, F.S.A., p. 1S8 : "Clement 
(the Pope) would gladly have received Henry VIII. 
into the bosom of thi Church. Finding his 

power not only unfetterred, but considerably increased 
since his separation from Rome, Henry declared him- 
self the head of the Church, and obtained the sanction 
of parliament to the entire abolition of the Papal 
authority in England. His first act as the 

head of the National Church was the dissolution of 
the monastic houses," etc. 

On p. 3 7 of Macaulay's History of England, we find 
these words : " It was not to be expected that they 
would immediately transfer to an upstart authority 
the homage which they had withdrawn from the 


They had paid homage to the Vatican till 1533, be- 
cause the Church in England was a Papal Church. 
These extracts clearly show that the Papal authority 
in spiritual matters was supreme in the English 
Church when Henry VIII. revolted, and consequently 
all spiritual orders came through Rome. 

Again, see History of Emjlatul, by Rev. T. Thomp- 
son and Charles Macf'arlane, vol. ii., page 217. Refer- 
ring to the reign of Henry VIII. the historian says : 
" In fact, at the close of this reign the Church of Eng- 
land, although it had east off the Roman supremacy, 
was still, according to its public formularies and the 
law of the land, at one ivith the Church of Rome in all 
the fundamental point* of doctrine and belief." 

See again same work, vol. ii., p. 218: " The first 
year of the reign of Edward VI. saw the fabric of the 
ancient system completely undermined, and the foun- 
dations laid of a Church Protestant in its doctrines 
and forms of worship." 

What ancient system was undermined ? Answer — 
The Papal Church in England. 

P. 219 : " The reign of Edward VI., in the course of 
which the Protestant doctrines and worship were thus 
gradually but, in the end completely establislied, must 
have very considerably slackened the hold of the 
ancient reliyion upon the popular mind. But we be- 
lieve that it was the reign of Mary, much more than 
that of Edward, which made England a Protestant 

What ancient religion ? Answei — The Papal religion. 

See p. 221 : " The effect of these new statues was 


once more to completely revolutionize the National 
religion — to transform England from a Catholic into a 
Pi otestant country.'' 

What was the National religion before the transfor- 
mation ? Answer — The Papal religion. All holy or- 
ders through Rome. 

See again, to show that apostolic succession and 
" holy orders " if possessed at all by the Episcopalian 
body must be from Rome : ' ; A full report of the case 
of Mastin v. Escott, clerk, for refusing to bury an in- 
fant baptized by a Wesleyan minister." Sir John 
Dodson was the Queen's Advocate, and was assisted 
by Dr. Haggard and Dr. Nicoll. Dr. Phillimore and 
Dr. Harding opposed. .See p. 1G9. 

The Queen's Advocate — " Where does the authority 
of the Church of England come from ? Whence does 
she derive it ? From the Church of Rome ?" 

Dr. Phillimore — "She derives it from the Apostles." 

The Queen's .Advocate — " Through the Church of 

Dr. Phillimore — ' Through but not from:' 

The Queen's Advocate — " It is conveyed to the mem- 
bers of the Church of Ewjlttnd through the Church of 

Here Sir John Dodson, the Queen's Advocate, as- 
serts that the Church of England derives her authority 
through the Church of Motae, and Dr. Phillimore ad- 
mits it is " through the Church of Rome, but not from 

Here I will submit the plain straight testimony of 
the historian Neal, who wrote his history A.D. 1733 


" It was admitted by the court reformers that the 
Church of Rome was a true church, though corrupt in 
some points of doctrine and government; that all her 
administrations were valid, and that the Pope was a true 
Bishop of Rome, though not of the Universal Church. 
It was thought necessary to maintain this for 
the support of our bishops, who could not other- 
wise derive their succession from the apostles." 
(Neal's History of the Puritan.-;, vol i., p. 90.) 

We submit, that these quotations prove beyond 
doubt that the Church of Rome was the only Church 
holding any pretensions to the possession of so-called 
Holy Orders during the centuries which intervened 
between the establishment of the complete supremacy 
of that Church in Britain by Theodore in 668, and the 
overthrow of that supremacy by Henry VIII., and that, 
as a necessary result, no apostolic line of succession 
could have been perpetuated during these centuries, 
save that which was in the clergy of the Romish 
Church ; and this is acknowledged by the highest 
legal authorities who are members of the Church of 
England. High Churchmen are, therefore, compelled 
to return to Rome — from whence they came — for the 
smallest chance of catching, and slightest hope of hold- 
ing, the much-coveted bauble of apostolic succession. 
We shall see how strong their claim to it, is from 
Rome, or through Rome, which is their only hope. 


Has the Church of England a Valid Autonomy and 
Apostolic Line from the Church of Rome. 

FROM the foregoing historical evidence two points 
will appear clear. 1. It is pure fiction for the 
High Church party to claim church-life and holy 
orders from the ancient British Church. 2. It is 
equally clear that if they have what they term an 
apostolic line of succession, they can have it only 
through Archbishop Parker. The validity or invali- 
dity of his consecration is, therefore, to them a life or 
death matter. 

From the evidence history affords, a portion of 
which will be submitted in this chapter, it is perfectly 
apparent that Parker and his ordainers were aware of 
the gravity of the situation on the one hand ; and that, 
on the other, they determined to do all in their power 
to surround their act with every circumstance which 
would tend to give it all the appearance of a true and 
valid ecclesiastical act. The}' were aware that there 
was a condition wanting which, on their own theory, 
invalidated the whole of their proceedings. This 
ini"ht be conjectured from their knowledge of canon 
law and their familiarity with other services of the 


kind ; and their silence on that point, while they were 
so scrupulously accurate in all the non-essentials of 
the ceremony, as described by Stiype, tends to con- 
firm the suspicion. Of this full and irrefragible proof 
is given when the}' obtain an Act of Parliament to 
legalize their proceedings. 

Many and strenuous have been the efforts made to 
prove that all was regular and canonical in the con- 
secration of Parker; but whether the advocates have 
been unskilful, or the case itself intrinsically and 
hopelessly bad, it is not necessary at this point to de- 
clare, but this is most undoubtedly true, that no 
apology for its gross and fatal irregularities has yet 
been presented which has removed from the minds of 
impartial investigators the impression that it was a 
bold and bungling attempt of desperate men to per- 
petrate an ecclesiastical fraud, if by it they meant to 
secure what High Churchmen call " the line of apos- 
tolic succession." Before the investigator examines 
the grave irregularities connected with that consecra- 
tion, let him acquaint himself with a few of the 
requirements of the canon law of the Church into 
whose line of succession they were endeavoring to 
obtrude Dr. Parker, and whose ecclesiastical orders 
they were endeavoring to filch, that they might 
decorate the intruder with the stolen plumes of apos- 
tolic succession. The fatal Haw, according to their 
own theory — and of which ail were aware — was that 
their own canon laws required that a metropolitan 
be ordained by his patriarch, or by all the bishops of 
his province ; and in the case of Parker it was not 


possible to obtain either of these conditions, and, con- 
sequently, the consecration was performed without 
that which their own canon law declares imperative, 
and the absence of which renders all consecrations 
null and void. 

The case is well put in the able exposure of this 
ecclesiastical fraud by Po well, pp. 98-99. Quoting 
from Bingham, book ii., chap. 16, sec. 12: " No bishop 
was to be elected or ordained without their (the me- 
tropolitan's) consent and approbation; otherwise the 
canons pronounce both the election and the ordina- 
tion xi i. r.. 

" What will our High Churchmen think of this — a 
matter determined by the authority of hundreds of 
bishops in council ? Will they say it has Divine 
right ? Then numbers of the English bishop ordina- 
tions were NULL ab initio (from the beginning) for 
they frequently* were not ordained by their metropoli- 
tan nor with his consent. Nay it will destroy Arch- 
bishop Pakker's ordination, upon which all the 
ordinations of the present bishops and clergy of the 
Church of England depend. For the canons require a 
metropolitan to be ordained by his patt-iarch, or at 
least by all the bishops of his province. Now Par- 
ker was ordain'ed by neither ! but against the con- 
sent of the first, and only by three or four, if any, of 
the last, many of the rest being opposed to his 

Then read the description of Parker's ordination as 
found in Strype's Life and Acts of Matthew Parker, 
Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Queen 


Elizabeth." Published in A.D. 1711. Beginning with 
chapter x. of the first book, he most minutely details 
the circumstances of the pretended consecration, spread- 
ing it over thirteen large pages ; but, either inten- 
tionally or thoughtlessly, he omits to inform the 
reader that, according to the canon law of the very 
Church from which they were professing to secure 
holy orders, all their proceedings were illegal, and, 
consequently, possessed no power to communicate 
the gifts they coveted. 

When the painfully minute description of the cere- 
monies attendant upon this consecration given by 
Strypeinhis Life and Acts of Matthew Parker is read, 
coupled with the knowledge that the ordained and 
the ordainers were all aware of the fact that their 
action was in direct violation of a fundamental prin- 
ciple of the laws, by professed obedience to which 
they pretended to obtain holy orders, the impres- 
sion comes with an irresistible force that the actors 
were aware they were simply playing a solemn farce. 
If they believed in the validity of the canon laws by 
which they were professing to be guided, they knew 
that, ecclesiastically, the archbishop they made bore 
the same relation to their true ideal of an archbishop, 
as the painted and toileted wax figure bears to the 
living conscious being. 

In justice to the memory of Archbishop Parker, it 
should be known that his acceptance of the office was 
not in accordance with his inclinations, his judg- 
ment, or his conscience. Long and earnest were the 
arguments with which he was plied before he con- 


sented to assume the proffered dignity. In order that 
his case be fairly understood, he shall speak for him- 
self, as his words are quoted by Strype in his Biogra- 
phy, book i., chap. 8, pp. 35-36 : " But especially that 
he might clog and cumber his conscience to God-ward, 
before whom he looked every day to make his answer, 
which he thought and trusted was not far off." He 
also plead that he " was afflicted with a quartan ague/' 
and he plead with Bacon, " and at the reverence of 
God entreated him, either to help that he be quite for- 
gotten or else so appointed that he were not entangled 
now of new with the concourse of the world in any 
respect of publick state of living.' After evading 
another summons from the Lord Keeper, Strype 
tells us : " In the meanwhile another letter dated the 
30th of December, comes to him from the court 
which was more peremptory. Wherein the Secretary 
wrote him in the Queen's name that she was minded 
presently to use his service in certain matters of im- 
portance. And therefore that he (the Secretary) was 
commanded so to signify to him ; to the end, that he 
should forthwith, upon the sight hereof, put himself 
in order to make his undelayed repair unto London, 
and then he would declare unto him the Queen's 
pleasure. But our Doctor made use again of his indis- 
position and want of health, to retard his coming so 
speedily.'' Again he is summoned, and this time in 
such a peremptory manner that he dare no longer dis- 
regard it or seek for excuses to evade it. Upon his 
arrival he is informed of the Queen's demand upon 
him. He thus addresses Bacon and Cecil, as recorded 


by Strype: "That unless they moderated and restrained 
their overmuch good-will in respect towards him, he 
feared in the end he should dislike them both: and 
that their* benevolences should, by occasion of his 
obstinate untowardness, jeopard him into prison. Vet 
he had rather, he said, suffer it in good conscience, than 
to be intruded into such a room and vocation, wherein 
he should not be able to answer the charge to God nor 
the world." Bacon gave him some hint that one rea- 
son for his declining to accept this preferment was 
on account of some foolish prophecies about sad 
times in the near future, to which Parker replied : " I 
esteem that fanatical hodge-podge not so well as I 
credit L u cian's book De Verts Xn.rridionibus ; nor yet 
all other vain prophecies of Sands, more than I regard 
Sir Thomas Mores book of Fortunes Ansirers upon 
the Chance of Three Dice (\tsting. I would I saw no 
more cause to fear the likelihood of God's wrath, de- 
served for dissolute lives, to fall upon this realm, by 
the evidence of the true Word and by God's old prac- 
tices.' It is easy to see the fear which oppressed Par- 
ker in the perilous position in which he was placed, 
between dread of offending Queen Elizabeth on the one 
hand, and lest he might be placed in such a position 
that if the Papists regained power he would pay for 
his dignities with the forfeit of his life at the stake, as 
his predecessor Oranmer had done. 

But May the 28th brought him a command he dared 
not disregard. It was stated " that it was the Queen's 
pleasure that he should repair up with all speed pos- 
sible ; leaving him not to his covenient speed, as they 


had done in the former letter. 1 ' It was no longer op- 
tional with Parker. The Tudor Queen with "the iron 
hand and the iron maw " conceived the thought that 
his elevation to the Archbishopric of Canterbury would 
strengthen her position as sovereign of the realm, and 
neither his scruples nor his fears should hinder her 
will. He was compassed with difficulties. 

Nor did the clouds break after he had donned the 
archiepiscopal robes for Strype records the prayer 
which Parker wrote at that time: "Alas! alas! O 
Lord God, for what times hast thou reserved me! Now 
I am come into deep waters, and the floods overflow 
me. O Lord I am in trouble," etc. We respect the deep 
and sorrowful emotions of an earnest man passing 
through a great crisis in his life, but were we bound 
to believe in the validity of the consecration, we could 
wish that it had not been in direct violation of the 
very laws upon which its validity rested, and that he 
upon whom the apostolic office was said to be conferred 
had not regarded it with so many grave doubts and 
such dark forebodings. A fuller examination of the 
circumstances attending it will possibly show just 
cause for the gloomy apprehensions of him who so 
mournfully and regretfully assumed what was ordi- 
narily considered a high dignity, and one greatly 
coveted. It will exhibit, in brief, the procedure by 
which the Church of England profess to have obtained 
apostolic succession, and a valid existence as a Church 
through Rome's succe-sion. 

xVfter they had broken off' from the Roman Church, 
and in the reign of Edward VI., an ordinal or form for 


consecrating bishops was devised, and displaced the 
Romish one then in use. This was done by the au- 
thority of the parliament. 

On Edward's death Mary, the Romanist queen, as- 
cended the throne, and her parliament annulled and 
declared illegal, the ordinal of Edward. On Mary's 
death Elizibeth, the Protestant queen, acquired the 
crown, and the Church under her headship, made it 
necessary for every bishop to swear his belief in the 
queen's spiritual supremacy in the following words ; 
" I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare that the 
queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this 
realm as well as in all apt -ritual and ecclesi- 

astical things or causes as iem/ioral" etc. (Sue Au- 
brey's Hist, of Eng., div. G, p. 021.) 

Some of the bishops refused to take the oath which 
declared a woman to be the " spiritual head of the 
Church," among whom was Cardinal Pole, Archbishop 
of York. They had then no archbishop and there 
was danger that not even the appearance of an or- 
dained ministry on the apostolic succession theory, 
would be preserved. Then Elizabeth, a woman, issued 
a command that Barlow, Scoresby, Coverdale, Hodg- 
kins, John of Thetford, and Ball of Ossory, that they, 
or any four of them, should consecrate Parker and 
make him Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The following is the description given by the his- 
torian Neal of the consecration of Archbishop Parker : 
" The sees were left vacant for some time, to see if any 
of the old bishops would conform; but neither time 
nor anything else could move them ; at length after 


twel vc months Dr. Parker was consecrated Archbishop 
of Canterbury by some of the bishops that had been 
deprived in tiie late reign, but not one of the present 
bishops would officiate. 

This, with some other accidents, gave rise to the 
story of his being consecrated at Nag's-Head Tavern 
in Chcapside, a fable which has been sufficiently con- 
futed by our Church historians. 

The persons concerned in the consecration were 
Barlow and Scoresby, bishops elect of Chichester and 
Hereford; Coverdale, the deprived bishop of Exeter, 
and Hodgkins, xuffraijan of Bedford. The ceremony 
was performed in a plain manner without gloves or 
sandals, ring or slippers, mitre or pall, or even with- 
out any of the Aaronical garments, only by imposition 
of hands and prayers. Strange that the archbishop 
should be satisfied with this in his own case, and yet 
be so zealous to impose the popish garments on his 

But still it ha^ been doubted whether Parker's con- 
secration was perfectly canonical. 1. Because the per- 
sons engaged in it had been legally deprived, and had 
not yet been restored. 2. Because the consecration 
ought by law to have been directed according to the 
statute of the twenty-fifth of Henry VIII. and not 
according to King Edward's ordinal ; as that book 
had been set aside in the late reign, and was not yet 

" These objections being frequently thrown in the 
way of the new bishops, made them uneasy ; they be- 
gan to doubt of the validity of their consecration, or 


at least of their legal title of their bishoprics. The 
affair was at length brought before parliament, and to 
silence all further clamours, Parker's consecration, and 
those of his brethren, were confirmed by parliament.'' 

" Soon after the Archbishop was installed he conse- 
crated several of his brethren whom the Queen had 
appointed to the vacant sees. Thus the Reformation 
was restored and the Church of England settled on its 
present basis.'' (See NeaVs History of the Puritans, 
vol. 1, pp. 89, 90.) 

In view of these grave irregularities in the conse- 
cration of Archbishop Parker and the other bishops, it 
is not strange that the majority of believers in apos- 
tolic succession doubt, and even vehemently deny the 
validity of the consecration of these English Church 
bishops. Nor is it strange that Parker and his 
brethren did not rest till they obtained an Act of 
Parliament to declare these consecrations valid ac- 
cording to the civil law, so that whether bishops in 
an ecclesiastical sense or no, thuy were bishops in a 
secular sense, and could claim their salaries. Never- 
theless these consecrations were undoubtedly in- 
valid by the canons of the Church. 

The Romanists at once detected the fatal flaw, that 
is, on the apostolic succession theory, and declared that 
the new bishops were not bishops at all, that the or- 
dinal was insufficient and illegal, and, as Hallam says 
in his Const. Hist. Eng., p. 95, " he (Bonner, a Roman 
bishop) had the pleasure of seeing his adversaries re- 
duced to pass an Act of Parliament declaring the pre- 
sent bishops to be legally consecrated," and the sam^: 


author says " the ordinal had not been legally re-estab- 
lished." (See p. 95.) 

If their consecration as bishops had been ecclesiasti- 
cally valid, they would have been true and genuine 
bishops without an Act of Parliament, and had Parker 
and the other English bishops been certain the}' had 
been properly consecrated they would never have suf- 
ferred the disgrace of having an Act of Parliament 
passed to make them, or declare them to be, what they 
already knew themselves to be. After the Act of Par- 
liament was passed they said, " We are bishops ! We 
are bishops ! Parliament says we are bishops,'' and 
the Roman party stood tantalizingly by and said to 
them in reply, '' Yes, you are bishops, but you are only 
Parliament made bishops ! " 


And again the form of the ordinal by which they 
claim they w T ere brought into the apostolic line was 
faulty. It reads thus (See the Liturgies of Edward 
VI., published by the Parker Society, p. 35") : 

" Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir 
up the Grace of God which is in thee by the imposi- 
tion of our hands, for God has not given us the spirit 
of fear but of power, and love and soberness." 

There was no mention in tins ordinal of the office or 
order to which the person consecrated was ordained, 
it ordained him to nothing but a r/rneral service of 
God, and not to a bishop's orders, and after 103 years, 
that is in 1662, the English Church by Convocation 
tried to remove all doubts as to the validity of their 


ordinations, by adding to the first part of the form 
above quoted these very significant words which I 
italicize: ' Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and 
work of a bUhop in the Church of God committed unto 
thee" etc. 

Now, if the form by which they consecrated Arch- 
bishop Parker, and all the rest of their bishops for 103 
years, was valid, and all that was necessary to commu- 
nicate apostolic grace, they did not need to add these 
very important words "for the office and work of a 
bishop in the Church of God committed unto thee," so 
many years after. 

But as they did think it necessary to add these 
words, they show that the}' were not satisfied that the 
ordinal was a true and valid one. Tried by their own 
theory their consecration of Archbishop Parker was 
thus defective, and their subsequent acts prove that 
103 years later the Church considered it was a doubt- 
ful ordination. 

But another question about the validity of their 
succession thus mended after 103 years. Who lived 
as a legally ordained bishop for 103 years and carried 
a valid succession over the gulf which yawned at their 
feet, till they patched up their ordinal in 16G2 ? No 
one ! And unless we take the theory of Bishop Coxe, 
their pretence to succession ends here with the 
attempt to ordain Parker. See his work Catholic 
and Roman Catholic, p. 30, where he says : " Only 
let it be observed that if an}- possible flaw could 
be found in Parker's case the succession commu- 
nicated to us in two instances by Dc Dominis, Arch- 


bishop of Spelato, in Dalmatia, in the 17th century, 
transmits of itself a better and more valid succession 
than that which the Nuncio Bedini conferred on Dr. 
Bayley, the present Roman Catholic Metropolitan." 
(lie admits degrees of validity. Strange!) Seeing 
that many doubt the validity of Parker's ordination, 
Bishop Coxe claims that if their ordinations were 
worthless before De Dominis made them, he does not 
say perfectly valid," Oh, no, but he says " more valid 
than that which the Nuncio Bedini conferred on Dr. 

Well, what degree of validity does Bishop Coxe say 
the ordination of Bedini had ? See p. 26, where he 
says: ' but neither the Walmsley nor the Bedini or- 
dinations have any validity, as establishing a Canoni- 
cal Episcopacy in this country.'' 

Now we have it just about as honestly as could be 
expected from a High Church bishop with such a bad 
case, for he claims that the succession the Episcopal 
Church got in the seventeenth century from De Dom- 
inis makes up tor the doubtful validity of Parker's 
consecration, because it is a more valid succession than 
that conferred by Nuncio Bedini, which, he says, HAS 


To put it briefly, after the break in the. episcopal 
succession caused by the irregularity of Parker's con- 
secration was mended by De Dominis, their succession 
was so much improved that it was better than one 
which was no good at all. Certainly there are some 
" difficulties about this succession dogma of the Epis- 
copal Church !" It is not strange that Dr. Sou they 
admitted it could not be proven. 


This Rev. Dr. Coxe, Bishop of Western New York, 
formulates the strongest defence and best apology 
for this Act of Parliament which made presbyters into 
bishops, and it should be presented here and examined. 
Bishop Coxe says : " It made a consecration allowed 
to be in all respects valid ecclesiastically, to be so by 
the law of the land ; enabling the bishops so conse- 
crated to hold their temporalities.' 

I have shown that these ordinations were not " al- 
lowed to be in all respects ecclesiastically valid," for 
the High Church or Romish party immediately chal- 
lenged their validity, and when Bishop Horn, of Win- 
chester, one of the bishops thus ordained, tendered the 
oath of supremacy to Bishop Bonner, a Roman Catholic 
bishop, intending to drive him to high treason, " Bon- 
ner, however, instead of evading the attack intrepidly 
denied the other to be a lawful bishop, and strange as 
it may seem, not only escaped all further molestation, 
but had the pleasure of seeing his adversaries reduced 
to pass an Act of Parliament declaring the present 
bishops to be legally consecrated." (See Hallam's Const, 
Hist, of Eng. p. Q5.) 

It is perfectly clear that this High Church bishop is 
contradicting history, when he said that these conse- 
crations were allowed to be in all respects " ecclesiasti- 
cally valid." As it was imukdiately, openly and in- 
trepidly denied. But to exhibit the illogical charac- 
ter of the pleadings of Bishop Coxe, I will ask and 
answer a few questions about it: 

Q. To whom did these temporalities belong by the 
law of the land already in force ? 


A. To the bishops of the church then established in 
England, which was the present Church of England. 

Q. What was necessary to enable one claiming these 
temporalities to hold them ? 

A. Two conditions only : 1. That he be ecclesiasti- 
cally validly ordained a bishop. 2. That he have a 
valid appointment to the bishopric. 

Q. Which was denied in case of Archbishop Parker 
and other bishops ? 

ING AS BISHOPS ; not their appointment by the sove- 
reign to the bishopric. 

Q. Can you prove this true ? 

A . Yes, because the Act of Parliament was passed to 
declare that " they had been legally consecrated 
AS BISHOPS," not to declare their appointment to the 
bishopric a valid appointment. Hallam's Const. Hist, 
of Eng., p. 95, says: 'An Act of Parliament de- 
consecrated bishops," not that they had been legally 
appointed to the bishoprics. 

This makes it clear that the only question was this : 
" Was their consecration as bishops a valid consecra- 
tion?" and as they were not satisfied that it was, they 
obtained an Act of Parliament to remove their doubts. 
Now if their ordinations had been ecclesiastically valid, 
they could have held their temporalities by the law of 
the land as it already stood ; but they feared they could 
not hold them on the ordinations they had received, 
and hence got the Act to help them ; therefore they 
had fears they were not validly ordained bishops, 


But if not validly consecrated before the Act of Par- 
liament was passed, it follows that they never were, 
for no Act of Parliament, which is a secular court, can 
make a man a scriptural bishop, which is an ecclesias- 
tical office. Therefore the defence is futile, and Dr. 
Parker's consecration remains still a broken link in 
the pretended chain of apostolic succession, not- 
withstanding Dr. Coxe's specious attempt to disprove 
the actual intent of the Act of Parliament by which 
Dr. Parker was made an archbishop. 

The testimony of history is that the present Church 
of England had its origin in " an obscure and pro- 
scribed sect usually called Lollards, who, aided by the 
confluence of foreign streams swelled into the Protes- 
tant Church of England." They, the Lollards, had no 
apostolic succession, nor did they pretend to possess 
church "holy orders.' In the contest between Henry 
VIII. and the Pope of Rome this sect of Protestants 
naturally espoused the king's cause. The clergy in 
the Church who were leavened with Protestant truth 
now came into prominence, and in the reigns of Ed- 
ward VI. and Elizabeth, exercised a powerful influence 
in formulating the creed of the new Church, and in 
arranging her form of government. This new Church 
had no archbishop, and no one who could, according 
to canonical law, authorize, or perform his consecration. 
The Lollard, or Protestant element, was easily satisfied 
with any forms so long as they were anti-Papal. Not 
so, however, with the Romish, or what we now call 
the High Church party. As we have seen, the result 
was a compromise between the two contending parties 


— the Lollards, or Protestants, on the one side, and 
the Romish, or High Church party, on the other. 

Macaulay says truly: "To this day the constitution, 
the doctrines, and the services of the Church retain the 
visible marks of the compromise from which she 
SIMiUXC (See Hint, of Eng., p. 5, Butler's ed.) As a 
result of this compromise between the Protestant and 
Romish parties, an attempt was made to secure apos- 
tolic succession from Rome, and a poor farce was 
played which was called the consecration of Arch- 
bishop Parker, and on it they base their claim to a 
succession through Rome, but which was then, has 
been ever since, and is now, indignantly repudiated by 
Romish, Greek and Jansenist churches. This is the 
way by which " an obscure and proscribed sect' unit- 
ing with some Romanists, or High Churchmen, ob- 
tained " holy orders,' and afterwards tried to have 
them made valid by Acts of Parliament. This is the 
method by which they became possessed of that tin- 
selled gewgaw they call apostolic succession, the posses- 
sion of which transformed "an obscure and proscribed 
sect" and their Romish allies into "the curiicu, with 
an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles." 

What a shameless sham the pretended apostolic suc- 
cession of the episcopal body is, when shot through 
with the light of historic truth. 

And this is the true condition of this dilapidated 
ecclesiastical theory of apostolic succession that forms 
" the stock in trade" of High Church priests ! Upon 
it they expatiate largely in their pastoral visits. But 
thev do not tell their simple and honest parishoners 


that the theory has so little to recommend it, that it 
makes its dupes the laughing-stock of all Christendom; 
and further that it is so disjointed, so improbable, so 
entirely unsupported by Scripture, so unnecessary, and 
so completely overturned by history that thousands 
upon thousands in the Church of England scorn to 
accept it, and flout the idea that it has the shadow of 
a claim for acceptance. 

Upon the evidence now submitted, I shall confi- 
dently rest the case, and hold that I have fully 
proven :— 

That the Episcopal Church has not received holy 
orders through an ancient British Church. 

That the present Church of England has not had 
" a continuous organic life from apostolic times to this 

That the present Church of England had its origin 
in the rupture between Henry VIII. and Pope Cle- 
ment VII., and, as Hallam says, " the Lollards swelled 
into the Protestant Church of England," and that it 
was then first made a church. 

That the only claim to apostolic succession in the 
English Church is derived from their former connec- 
tion with the Romish Church, and this claim is of 
but little value when tested by the undeniable evi- 
dence of history ; in fact of so little value, that the 
Rev. Dr. Coxe, Bishop of Western New York, feels it 
incumbent upon him to seek to strengthen it, as I 
have shown, by the orders obtained from De Dominis, 
which he declared were as good as those Bedini had 


conferred on Dr. Bayley, which he, Bishop Coxe, ad- 
mitted were of no value whatever. 

In 1844 the Bishop of Hereford said, " To spread 
abroad this notion would make ourselves the derision 
of the world,'' which strong language is fully justified 
by the facts submitted. 


Do other Churches admit that the Church of England- 
has an Apostolic Succession such as the High 
Church party assert they possess ? Are High 
Churchmen themselves satisfied that their ordina- 
tions are valid? 

WE shall now see how the churches which accept 
the theory of Apostolic Succession as necessary 
to church existence, view the claim of the Church of 
England to such a succession. 

Home rejects the or. li nations of the Episcopal Church. 
" Whatever opinion we may form as to the question 
whether Parker was consecrated at Lambeth or not, 
and as to whether Barlow, his pretended consecrator 
was a bishop or not (these are matters of opinion to 
be determined by historical research) it is absolutely 
certain, that on account of the form used, Anglican, 
and consequently Protestant Episcopal orders, are viti- 
ated and invalidated ; hence, though the Church has 
acknowledged the validity of ordinations in the Greek 
Church, and, even the validity of the consecration of 
the Jansenixt bishops of Holland, and in fact of all 
who preserved the regular ancient form, yet she never 



Dr. Milner expresses the mind of the Catholic Church 
when he says that the form used in the English 
Church previous to 1662 is just as proper for the cere- 
mony of confirming, or laying hands on children, as it 
is for conferring the powers of Episcopacy. (See Apos- 
tolic Succession, by Bishop Ryan, p. 13.) Rome there- 
fore rejects as invalid the orders which the Church of 
England tried to obtain from Rome through Parker's 

Now, how does the Greek Church treat the ordina- 
tions of the Anglican Church. The High Church his- 
torian, Dr. Lee, says : " The late Archbishop of Syros 
and Tenos, even more civil than some of his brethren, 
re-ordained absolutely, the Rev. James Chrystal, an 
American clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church (the Church of England in the United States) ; 
while the Servian Archimandrite, who once gave Holy 
Communion to a London clergyman, the Rev. William 
Denton, was most severely reprimanded by 

authority, and made to give a promise in writing that 
he would never repeat that, his canonical offence ; and 
this in a formal document which described the Church 
of England as unorthodox and Protestant, and the 
clergyman in question as without the priesthood. (See 
Apostolic Succession, Ryan, p. 163.) So we see the 
Greek Church denies their ordination too. 

As a matter of fact, there is not a ohukch in all 
CHRISTENDOM, whether it be episcopal or non-episco- 
pal, that believes in the High Church claim to an 
apostolic line of succession. Is the High Church party 


right, and all Christendom besides wrong ? One or 
the other is right. Which is it ? 

Here the High Church party stands an ecclesiastical 
Ishmaelite with its hand against every church, and 
every church lifting its hand in protest against the 
false claim of the High Church to an apostolic line of 
succession. But worse calamities are yet to follow this 
assumption. The denial of the validity of Archbishop 
Parker's consecration on the apostolic succession the- 
ory, and of the validity of the claim to an apostolic 
succession is not confined to the other episcopal 
churches, to the non-episcopal churches, and the evan- 
gelical part of the Church of England, but doubts 
appear to have troubled the minds of the best and 
most scholarly of the High Church party, as to the 


Read the testimony of one of their standard divines. 
The learned and "judicious Hooker,' knowing the 
worthlessness of the consecration of Archbishop Par- 
ker, when tested by the theories of apostolic succesion 
and episcopacy, " judiciously'' admits that these dogmas 
are not necessary to a true church, lest his own church 
would perish in the crucible of testing. On the 402-3 
pages of the edition of 1705, of his Ecclesiastical Po- 
lity, he says : " In which respect it was demanded of 
Beza, at Poissie, by what authority he could adminis- 
ter the holy sacraments, being not thereunto ordained 
by any other than Calvin, or by such as to whom the 
power of ordination did not belong, according to the 
ancient order and customs of the Church, sith (since) 
Calvin and they who joined with him in that action 


were no bishops. And Afchanasius maintained that 
Macarius, a presbyter, having not been consecrated 
thereto by laying on of some bishop's hands according 
to the ecclesiastical canons ; as also Epiphanius in- 
veigheth sharply against divers for doing the like 
when they had not episcopal ordination. To this we 
answer, that there may be sometimes ven - just and 
sufficient means to allow ordination made without a 
bishop.'' That would save Archbishop Parker, and 
the holy orders of the Church of England, but it de- 

Succession ! 

Again, on the same page this "judicious ' divine, 
and accepted authority in the Church of England 
utters another equally true, but to apostolic succession 
equally fatal, statement. Read it in the light of the 
fact that every bishop actually in possession of a 
bishopric in England, absolutely refused to consecrate 
Parker (See Neal's Hist, of the Puritans, vol. i., p. 89), 
and the "judicious" character of this writer is clearly 
apparent. He says on p. 402 : " Another extra- 
ordinary kind of vocation is, when the exigency of 
necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of 
the Church, which otherwise we would willingly 
keep; where the church must needs have some 
ordained, and neither hath, nor can have possi- 
bly a bishop to ordain ; in case of such necessity, the 
institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may 
give place. And therefore we are not simply with- 
out exception, to urge a lineal descent of power 



bishops in every effectual ordination.'' This admis- 
sion is necessary to save the consecration of Arch- 
bishop Parker, and the so-called holy orders of the 
Church of England from ruin, but it totally DE- 
admits the validity of ordinations performed by those 


Three things are prominent here : First, the "judi- 
cious Hooker " admits there may be true ordina- 
tions without a bishop, thus abandoning the dogma 
of Episcopacy ; the second is, he admits that A lineal 

ISTRY ; thus abandoning the error of APOSTOLIC SUC- 

The third is, that it is extremely improbable that 
Hooker, who strove through many long pages to 
establish these very doctrines of Apostolic Succession 
and Episcopacy which he here abandons, would have 
made these admissions, had he not known that, tested 
by these dogmas of Episcopacy and Apostolic Succes- 
"judicious Hooker" himself, were absolutely and 
palpably WORTHLESS. I might refer to the many dis- 
tinguished clergymen who have gone from the High 
Church to the Romish Church, in proof of the doubts 
the High Churchmen entertain regarding this dogma. 

The Right Rev. George M. Randall, Bishop of the 
Episcopalian Church in Colorado, published a book in 


l8iSij, entitled, Why am I a ( Ihn r<-hr)i<oi. ? On the 41st 
page he admits there may have been as many as ONE 
hundred Episcopalian clercymen who, in the last 


and joined the Roman Catholic. But he claims 
this is not many ! Perhaps it is not in view of their 
uncertainty about the validity of their ordinations. 

The late Rev. Dr. [yes, Bishop of the Episcopalian 
Church, in North Carolina, examined the manner of 
Archbishop Parker's ordination, and became so fully 
convinced that it was not a valid ordination that he 
left the Episcopalian Church and joined the Roman 
Catholic. In his book called Trial* of Mind, pp. 156-7, 
quoted by Bishop Ryan in Apostolic Succession, pp. 
40-2, he says: "I asked myself, who sent Archbishop 
Parker ? When Elizabeth ascended the throne, 

I saw two powers only who even claimed the right of 
spiritual jurisdiction in England, the Pope 

and the Queen. The Pope sustained in his authority 
by the whole Church in England ; the Queen sustained 
by her Parliament only. The Church, therefore, in 
England, could not have commissioned and sent this 
archbishop. She (the Church) was utterly against 
him. Really I could discern no authority 

earlier than the Queen and Parliament of England. 
And, therefore, that my o~>vn commission to act for 
Christ had its origin in man.' 

And this conclusion, which was reached by this 
Episcopalian bishop when he examined the mode of 
Archbishop Parker's ordination, is the only true con- 
clusion which any believer in the dogma of apostolic 


succession can reach, by learning the truth about Arch- 
bishop Parker's ordination. 

It is not strange, therefore, that Bishop Randall of 
Colorado thought that, when only one hundred of 


since 1876, the number was small, for every one who 
intelligently studies the question, if lie be a believer 
in apostolic succession, will be convinced, as their 
Bishop Ives was, " that his own commission to act for 
Christ had its origin in man," and the Romish Church 
is then his only refuge, unless he abandon the dogma 
of apostolic succession. 

I will now quote from one of their own High Church 
historians, Dr. Lee, in proof of the significant fact 
that well-read High Churchmen, of the present age 
are as fearful and uncertain about the validity of the 
consecration of Archbishop Parker, and the canonicity 
of the holy orders of the Church of England, as was 
the "judicious Hooker" in his day. The patching 
by De Dominis, to which it has been subjected, has 
not strengthened it. 

Read the following from Dr. Lee, the historian and 
champion of Anglicanism, as quoted in Apostolic Suc- 
cession, by Bishop Ryan, pp. 1G3 and 164: "There 
are certain difficulties which it must be frankly 
allowed have always been felt by learned Roman 
Catholics and Orientals, with regard to the fact of 
Parker's consecration, and which must be duly faced 
and removed, before any recognition of the validity 
of English ordinations can he reasonablji e,<-/>ected 
from Kastern or Went em Churches. Anglicans must 


not remain contented with assertions which appear to 
satisfy themselves, but be prepared with arguments 
and conclusions which will convince their opponents. 

" At Rome every care is taken to arrive at the truth, 
so that the inadequate defences regarded as sufficient 
and satisfactory by some at home, will never pass 
muster in the presence of the skilled theologians of the 
Eternal City. A huge assumption, as Roman Catholics 
maintain, that all was right in Parker's case is of 
course easily enough made, but detailed proofs of 
facts and satisfactory replies to objections, often give 
trouble, entail research, and yet remain insitfficitnt 
for the 'purpose." 

Again, the same Anglican historian says : " It is self- 
evident that the moral argument in favor of their 
(Anglican orders) validity is very strong, perhaps 
strow/er than either the theological or historical argu- 

Here, in these words, Dr. Lee, the High Church his- 
torian, virtually surrenders the theological, or scrip- 
tural, as well as the historical argument in favor of 
an apostolic succession in the Church of England, and 
with this surrender that false system lies like Dagon, 
with its face to the ground before the ark of the Lord, 
and the head and both palms of its hands are cut off 
upon the threshold, only the stump (marginal reading, 
fishy part) is left. 

Realizing the worthlessness of their claim to an 
apostolic succession through the Roman Church be- 
cause of the grave irregularities connected with the 
procedure, and in the face of the fact that their ordina- 


tions were declared to be spurious, and were treated 
with contempt by the Roman Church, the Greek 
Church, and the little Jansenist Church of Holland, 
and laughed at by every one of the great preshyterial 
churches for the pride and insolence they exhibited in 
their pitiful condition, they felt that something must 
be done to save them and their honey-combed system 
from dissolution. They, therefore, sadly let go of the 
skirts of Rome, and frantically grasped at an inde- 
pendent line of apostolic succession through an ancient 
British Church. The fact stands out before us with- 
out any contradiction, that all the Christian churches, 
Protestant and Catholic, agree that the High Church 
claim to an apostolic line of succession is totally 
worthless, and is supremely ridiculous in the light of 


Dili the Present Church of England arise in tlie Six- 
teentli Century ? Is it Protestant ? 

TO those unfamiliar with the assumptions of the High 
Church party, it may seem strange that any por- 
tion of the Church of England should deny that that 
Church is Protestant, in the common acceptation of 
that term, and affirm that it is the Catholic Church. 
Yet this is their claim, and they press it with a bold- 
ness that is astonishing when it is remembered that the 
records of history are so clear and unequivocal on this 
point. The beginning of the Episcopalian Church is 
not lost in the mists of antiquity, nor even clouded 
by partial or contradictory records. Abundant testi- 
mony is available, so abundant in fact is the evidence, 
that the fanciful and purely imaginative theories 
which they spin, and with which they satisfy them- 
selves afford occasion for ridicule, and even pity and 
contempt, for such as accept them, among those who 
pny even a slight degree of attention to the actual 
facts relating ^o this question. We do not think it 
necessary to prove at length what is found in all reli- 
able history, but will give a brief quotation from that 


prince of historians, Hallam, which effectually settles 
the question as to the origin of the Church of England. 

See Hallam's Const. Hist, of Eng., p. 55 : "Almost a 
hundred and fifty years before Luther, nearly the same 
doctrines as he taught had been maintained by Wick- 
liffe, whose disciples, usually called Lollards, lasted as 
a numerous, though obscure and proscribed sect, till, 
aided by a confluence of foreign streams, they swelled 
into the Protestant Church of England." 

Hallam, the great historian, here says the Lollards 
" swelled into the Protestant Church of England." 
Xotice that it was a sect of Christians holding, and 
who had an existence, only because they held Pro- 
testant doctrines, that swelled into the Protestant 
Church of England, and which is the present Epis- 
copal body. I call particular attention to the fact that 
Hallam says the present Church of England had its 
origin in " an obscure and proscribed sect, usually 
called Lollards." Why do they fling the word 
'sect" so bitterly against the Methodists when they 
had their origin in a "sect" themselves, and were 
only made a " church," in their sense of the word, by 
Acts of Parliament ? Let them bear in mind that 
their origin was in "an obscure and proscribed sect, 
usually called lollards," and not in any ancient 
British Church. 

When the}* are properly informed about their own 
pedigree, and learn that they originated in " an ob- 
scure and proscribed sect," and not in " an ancient 
British Church,'' they will lower their heads and cease 
their foolish prating about "the Church ' and "sects," 


as the present Church of England was only a 
" SECT," till, aided by a confluence of foreign streams, 
they swelled into the Protestant Church of England, 
and were made a Church by Acts of Parliament, 
under Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth. 

High Churchmen must see that all history is against 
their foolish fable of their origin in an ancient British 
Church, and Ilallatn here positively traces it to the 
Lollards, "an obscure and proscribed sect, who swelled 
into the Church of England." Why did Hallam not 
say that the new Church was only the old British 
Church with its " face washed," as High Churchmen 
delight to put it ? 

The Church of England of the sixteenth century 
was a child of Providence, as the Methodist Church 
was in the eighteenth century, and instead of cling- 
ing to the effete superstitions of Rome, as the High 
Church party do, Episcopalians should boldly claim 
her place as a God-appointed agent for establishing 
Christ's kingdom. 

Tested by the Word of God, the Protestant Church 
of England bears her Divine credentials written on 
her banners as the law was written on the tables of 
stone, with God's own finger, and she carries them 
triumphantly in the great moral battle field, a puissant 
and conquering force ; but tested by the fictitious, 
priestly formula of apostolic succession, she is a 
stranger outside the gate, whose alien birth is bla- 
zoned on every page of secular and ecclesiastical 

The High Church party committed two serious errors 


in endeavoring to find a theory to suit their wishes: 
First, when they claimed a legitimate filial relation to 
Rome on the anti-scriptural ground of apostolic suc- 
cession. They then asked to be acknowledged as an 
ecclesiastically legitimate daughter of Rome, and pite- 
ously and supplicatingly cried " Mother," but in reply 
Rome bitterly and scornfully shouted " Alien," and 
the whole Episcopalian family joined in the cry of 
" OUTCAST," and agreed that by their family test of 
apostolic succession, the Church of England " was not 
of the household of faith.' 

Secondly, after having been scornfully cast off by 
Rome, and the illegitimacy of their ecclesiastical birth 
declared by their own mother, the High Church party, 
after years of insults and degradation from Rome, 
sadly and regretfully loose their hold on her skirts 
and stretch out their now empty hands in a vain effort 
to grasp the garments of an ancient British Church. 
They, however, only clutched at a mouldy shroud, for 
this Church, if she ever had an organic ecclesiastical 
life, had been in her unknown grave, without as much 
as a stone to mark her sepulchre, for more than a 
thousand years. 

The record of history for the two centuries preced- 
ing the coming of Augustine from Rome with his forty 
monks, is this : " During two centuries the Christian 
creed was entirely swept away by Saxon heathendom 
and St. Chrysostom records that the Bri- 
tannic Isles had felt the power of the Word, that 
churches and altars had been erected, and passed 
away like an unsubstantial pageant faded." (See 


Knight's Hist, of Ewj., p. 17.) In this avalanche of 
Saxon heathendom which covered the British Isles, 
the Christianity of the islands found its tomb, and 
when the Christian faith assumed an organized eccle- 
siastical form, it was under the Romish missionaries 
sent by Pope Gregory I. in A.D. 568. Also, the words 
of one of their own clerical historians, Rev. John 
Richard Green, before quoted, who says, " But in 
Britain the priesthood and the people had been exter- 
minated together. When Theodore came to organize 
the Church of England, the very memory of the older 
Christian Church, which existed in Roman Britain, 
had passed away." 

And yet from the side of an old grave where its 
occupant had lain silent in death for more than a de- 
cade of centuries, this orphaned and disowned, yet 
insolent, little High Church outcast of Rome, comes 
without even a rag of the grave clothes of the ancient 
British Church, and claims for its mother this Church, 
which had been dead for more than a thousand years 
before this illegitimate child of Rome saw the light of 

That the Church of England had its origin in the 
Reformation which began under Henry VIII., is clear 
to all who read the history of that great religious up- 
heaval ; yet High Churchmen can be found who shut 
their eyes to all light and persistently deny it. One 
instance of this wilful blindness is to be found in a 
book of sermons to children, by Rev. J. N. Norton, of 
Louisville, Kentucky, who in a sermon on " Salt," has 
as his second division : " Ignorance and self-conceit 


cannot claim to have much salt in their discourse." 
This he practically exemplifies in the sentences 
which immediately follow : " I once heard a man say, 
who had a great horror of Romanism, 'Well, well; 
after all it must be the oldest religion. Did not St. 
Paul write an epistle to the Romans ? ' He ought to 
be a first cousin to those who ask, ' Did not Henry 
VIII. start your Church?'" (See The Kings Ferry 
Boat, p. 119.) 

History undeniably affirms that the Church of 
England had its origin in the Reformation under 
Henry VIII., and Hallam traces it still more accu- 
rately and definitely to " a proscribed and obscure sect, 
called Lollards, who, aided by a confluence of foreign 
streams, swelled into the Protestant Church of Eng- 
land." But as they deny they are Protestants, in the 
common acceptation of the term, proof must be fur- 
nished to establish that fact also. It must be borne in 
mind that there were two factions in the early Church 
— one Romish, and the other Protestant, as we find 
them to-day. Occasionally the Romish party would 
gain a point in the struggle and stamp some feature of 
Romanism on the Protestant Church of England, but 
the great Protestant character of the Church they 
could not destroy. I will, however, now quote the 
words of a High Church writer, who says : " The 
Church of England is not Protestant, in the common 
acceptation of the term, but Catholic '' (see ibtkodism 
vs. The Church, p. 52), and I shall prove it to be High 
Church teaching. I will define his meaning, show 
why High Churchmen take that position, and then 


prove it to be absolutely at variance with fact, and by 
abundant historical and convincing proof show that the 
real Church of England is a true Protestant Church. 
1st. As to his meaning. He here assumes that the 
Church of England of to-day did not have its origin in 
the great Reformation of the sixteenth century, under 
Henry VIII., Edward VI. and Elizabeth, and was not 
a part ami parcel of that mighty culmination of religi- 
ous efforts in which the assumptions of the Papacy 
were boldly and successfully PROTESTED against; in 
other words, he claims their succession through an 
ancient British Church, and hence must deny that the 
true historical origin of the English Church was in 
the great Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth 


2nd. But why prefer the ancient British Church 
theory to the Protestant Church of England theory ? 

I reply, and will piove my reply the correct one. 
Because the restless Romanizing High Church party, 
of which this writer is a member, desires to teach, 
under the authority of the Church of England, many 
doctrines held by the Roman Church, and against 
which the Protestant Church of England pro- 
tested in the sixteenth century; and by going 
back of the Reformation and Henry VIII., they CAN 
find in the teaching of the Church of England the 
false doctrines they long to see prevail again, and the 
reason they can find these errors of Apostolic Succes- 
sion, Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration, etc., is 
because the Church of England before the Reforma- 


tion, which openly began under Henry VIII., was 
completely roman catholic, and only roman 

We have come to this point, the High Church 
party deny and discard the glorious old word Protes- 
tant purely because they long after the Romish teach- 
ings against which the real, the true, the grand 
old Protestant Church of England protested, 
and in defence of which many of her martyred saints 
perished in the flames of Smithtield. 

Now to the last point, Is the Church of England 
Protestant ? High Churchman says it is not Protest- 
ant, in the common acceptation of that term, which 
means it did not arise as a part of the great Reforma- 
tion in the sixteenth century. 

I will prove — 1st. Its originators took their stand 
on the identical principles upon which the Reforma- 
tion was based, and which underlie the Protestantism 
of to-day ; 2nd. That the bishops and leading divines 
of the early English Church adopted these principles 
and took the name " Protestant " for their doctrine 
and for their new Church organization, when writing 
about it ; and 3rd. Prove that in some of the most im- 
portant Acts of Parliament in that age, in the suc- 
ceeding ages, and in our own time, when the Church 
of England is mentioned, it is called Protestant, if 
necessary to express its position on that question ; and 
lastly, that even in our own time when the bitter 
word " Protestant " is sugar-coated with a PECUNIARY 
advantage, even High Church priests can gulp it down, 
and calmly wipe their mouths and say, " We have not 


sinned." For instance, when the Clergy Reserves Act 
was passed, granting certain lands in Canada for the 
partial support of a "Protestant Clergy," High Church- 
men found the bolus, not perhaps pleasant to the eye, 
but yet not bitter to the taste, and they greedily 
grabbed all that came in their way, even though the 
Act stated these reserves were only for "Protestant 

It seems they are "Anglo-Catholics," when formulat- 
ing their creed, but ' Protestants " when foraging for 
plunder. They are, to adopt Huxley's description of a 
certain school of scientists, " a sort of half-breed, en- 
dowed like most half-breeds with the faults of both 
parents and the virtues of neither." 

But now as to the identity of the principles of Pro- 
testantism with those which were placed as the foun- 
dation of the English Church in the reigns of Henry, 
Edward and Elizabeth. First, I will prove that the 
principle against which the nobles of Germany pro- 
tested, when the name "Protestant ' was first applied, 
is the identical principle against which the founders 
of the Church of England protested. 

Proof — The word Protestant was, in this connection, 
first applied to the nobles of Germany who, at the 
Diet of Spires, in 1529, " protested " against the power 
claimed by the Pope to forbid a member of the Roman 
Catholic Church to change his creed; in other words, 
they protested against the spiritual supremacy of the 
Pope. (See Beiti's Heel. Hist. Breviarium, quoted in 
Princeton Review, 1837, Art. Protestantism.) Now 
read the words of the oath in the Act of Supremacy 


required by Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, in the begin- 
ning of the existence of the Church of England : — 
'* I, A B, do utterly testify and declare that the Queen's 
Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm as 
well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or 
causes, as temporal," etc. (See Aubrey's Hist, of Eng., 
div. 6, p. 621.) Here the same principle is the key- 
stone of the new Church, a protest against the spiritual 
supremacy of the Pope, hence Protestant. 

A^ain, the Church of England in the 37th article 
does ni>v embody this protest against the supremacy 
of the Po t x in these words: "The Queen's Majesty 
hath the ehiei'xDower in this realm of England, and 
other of her Dom>nions, unto whom the chief govern- 
ment of all estates if this realm, whether they be 
FOREIGN jurisdiction." Hci? is the same principle 
again affirmed, viz.: a PROTEST AC4INST THE SPIRITUAL 
SUPREMACY OF THE Papacy. Why say the Church is 
not Protestant, in the common acceptation of the term, 
in the face of these historical and prestnt-day facts ? 
I have already proven that leading divines of the 
early English Church protested against the papal doc- 
trine of Baptismal Regeneration, and if necessary could 
prove they also protested against other Popish heresies, 
such as the Confessional, Apostolic Succession, the Real 
Presence — the errors against which the Protestants 
in the Church of England protest to-day, and which 
were also protested against by the Protestants on the 


I will quote from the preface to the Xew Interpre- 
tation of the Apocalypse, by the Rev. G. Croly, LL.D., 
Rector of St. Stephen's, Walbr. ok, London, in Tract 
No. 8 of the Protestiint Association's Publications. 
His words directly contradict High Church assertions. 
Firstly, that the present English Church was not begun 
in the reign of Henry VIII. and solidified under Ed- 
ward Yf. and Elizabeth. The reverend rector says: 
'' Protestantism was first thoroughly established in Eng- 
land in the reign of Elizabeth," therefore the present 
Church of England is Protestant; and, secondly, it 
follows that the Church was ProU'*t<f »t, which was 
established in England when " Protestantism was first 
thoroughly established " in England. And again he 
says : " But the cause of Elizabeth was Protestantism : 
and in that sign she conquered." " She fought 

the battles of the French Protestants." And again, 
" But her great work was the establishment of Pro- 
testantism." And again he says, " She died in the 
fulness of years and honor; the great Queen of Pro- 
testantism throughout the nations." Yet High Church- 
men say, " the Church of England is not Protestant, in 
the common acceptation of the term, but Catholic." 

Speaking of James I., the Rev. Dr. Croly, above- 
mentioned, says, " his first act was to declare his alle- 
giance to Protestantism." Of Charles I., he says: "But 
Charles betrayed the sacred trust of Protestantism." 
Of Cromwell, he says: "But whatever was in the 
heart of the Protector, the policy of his government 
was Protestantism.' Of William the Prince of Orange, 
he says : " William was called to the throne by Pro- 


testantism," "the principles of William's government 
was Protestantism." Of the Royal House of Brunswick, 
he says : "The Brunswick line were called to the throne 
by Protestantism. Their faith was their title. 
They were honorable men and they kept their oaths 
to the Religion of England." What faith was 
their title? Answer: The Protestant faith; for the 
Act of Settlement makes it imperative that the sove- 
reign be a Protestant. And what was " the religion of 
England " to which the kings of the Brunswick line 
kept their oaths ? — the Protestant Religion. 

In all these instances this learned expositor, a rec- 
tor in the English Church, uses the term "Protestant, 
in the common acceptation of the term,' as protesting 
against the supremacy of Rome, ami other erroneous 
doctrines of the Papacy, and applies it to the Episco- 
palian Church in England. 

Again, I will quote extracts from the Act of Settle- 
ment, as given in Hamilton's Hist, of Eng., p. 429: 
" That whereas it hath been found by experience to 
be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this 
Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a popish 
prince, or by any king or queen marrying a Papist, 
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do 
further pray that it may be enacted that all and every 
person who shall be reconciled to the Church of Rome, 
or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for- 
ever incapable to inherit the crown of government of 
these realms, or to exercise any regal power, authority 
or jurisdiction within the same ; and in all and every 
such case the people shall be and are hereby absolved 


of their allegiance ; the crown to descend to such per- 
son or persons, being Protestants, as should have 
inherited the same in case the person or persons so 
reconciled, or marrying as aforesaid were naturally 

The King or Queen of Great Britain must then be 
a Protestant, and the Church of which the King or 
Queen of England is the head, is Protestant also, 
according to this law of the realm. Why deny, then, 
that the Church of England is Protestant ? 

One more proof to establish what no one should for 
one moment deny. See Parliamentary Government 
in the British Colonies, pp. 305-306, by Alpheus 
Todd : " In Canada by the Imperial Act 31, Geo. III. c. 
31, passed in 1791, the Church of England was par- 
tially established and ' Protestant Clergy ' thereof par- 
tially endowed, by grants of land reserved for their 
support. But this gave rise to much strife and con- 
troversy. Presbyterians and other non-Episcopalian 
communions claimed equal rights, both civil and reli- 
gious, in the British Colonies ; and this could not be 
withstood or gainsaid. In 1840 the judges of England 
gave a unanimous opinion to the House of Lords that 
the words, ' a Protestant Clergy ' in the Statute 31 
Geo. III. c. 31, are large enough to include, and that 
they do include, other clergy than those of the Church 
of England." 

Here were valuable grants of land given to Pro- 
testant clergy, and for years they were greedily swal- 
lowed by the clergy of the Church of England, who 
then declared they were the only Protestant clergy 


in Canada, and denied that other clergymen, such as 
Presbyterians, had any right to be called Protestant 
clergymen in a legal sense. Yet High Churqhmen say 
now that the Church of England is not Protestant, in 
the common acceptation of that term. Were there 
more " loaves and fishes " for distribution among the 
" Protestant clergy,'' would our dear brethren of the 
Episcopalian Church modestly decline to accept a 
share on the plea that " they are not Protestants, in 
the common acceptation of the word ?" I think not. 

I have given these numerous references to prove 
that the word " Prptestant " was applied to the Church 
of England in most important Acts of Parliament, 
in the earliest age of the Church, as well as in the pre- 
sent, and also to prove that their own writers cl.iimed 
that word as defining their Church ; also that even 
High Churchmen accepted it when the Clergy Re- 
serves were to be obtained by doing so ; and I shall 
now show that it, when applied to that body, meant 
the peculiar doctrines which they held. To prove 
this, and at the same time to show the origin of the 
Church of England in its ecclesiastical life as well 
as doctrine, I will quote again from Hallam (see 
Const. Hist, of England, p. 55). He says: "Almost 
a hundred and fifty years before Luther, nearly the 
same doctrine as he taught had been maintained by 
Wickliffe, whose disciples, usually called Lollards, 
lasted as an obscure and proscribed sect, till, aided by 
the confluence of foreign streams, THEY SWELLED INTO 
the Protestant Church of Kxgland." Here Hal- 
lam affirms the origin of the doctrinal teachings of the 


Church of England to be the teachings of Wickliffe, 
which, he says, were nearly the same as the teachings 
of Luther, and every one knows that that means Pro- 
testant doctrines. And he further says that these 
Lollards who held these Protestant doctrines swelled 
into the Protestant Church of England ; therefore the 
Church of England is Protestant in doctrine. Any 
variation from the doctrines of Protestantism in 
the Church of England came in, as I have said before, 
with the Romanizing party in the Church. To sum 
up these proofs : — 

1st. The Church of England was founded upon the 
very principles which gave rise to the word " Pro- 

2nd. These principles were acknowledged and em- 
bodied in the oath of supremacy under Henry VIII. 
and Queen Elizabeth, at the founding of the present 
Episcopal Church. 

3rd. The term Protestant is incorporated in the 
Act of Settlement by which our Kings and Queens 
hold their title to the throne of Great Britain and 
the allegiance of the people. 

4th. The leading divines of the early English Church 
protested against the doctrines of Apostolic Succession, 
Baptismal Regeneration, Confession, the Real Presence, 
and other false doctrines known commonly as Papal. 

5th. The clergy of the Church of England for seve- 
ral years took all the Clergy Reserves granted for 
the support of " a Protestant Clergy in Canada,' on 
the claim that they were " the only Protestant Clergy 
in Canada," and absolutely refused to give any part to 


other Protestant clerg3 r men till forced by an Act of 
Parliament to disgorge a portion of the plunder they 
had secured under the plea that they were " the only 
Protestant Clergy " in Canada. Yet in this age men 
can be found to declare in the face of all this crushing 
evidence that "the Church of England is not Pro 
testant, in the common acceptation of that term.'' 
It is only the High Church faction that denies the 
grand old historic name, and foolishly apes Papal 

6th. Lastly, the plain and undeniable evidence of 
one of England's greatest historians, Hallam, who 
gives the doctrinal, as well as ecclesiastical, origin of 
the Church of England, and shows it to be Protestant 
in its very inception. 

The real Church of England is Protestant to the 
core, and does not blush to acknowledge the name. 
The claim that the Church of England is the Catholic, 
or Universal Church, is too childishly absurd to de- 
mand more than passing notice. 

It is a part of the Catholic Church, and only a part. 
In face of the fact that it is largely outnumbered by 
the other branches of the true Church of Christ, it is 
simple in the extreme to ask any one of the most or- 
dinary intelligence to believe it is the Universal 
Church of Christ. 

We have never yet learned that a part, and only a 
small part at that, is equal to the whole. I hope 
High Churchmen will not deny the veracity of geo- 
metrical axioms, as they have discredited all reliable 
history. There is a limit to the credulity of even the 


most bigoted, and they will lose many they now hold 
if they tax their faith too severely. 

I submit these quotations prove beyond the possi- 
bility of successful contradiction, that the Church of 
England, as founded in the sixteenth century, is essen- 
tially Protestant, in the common acceptation of that 
word, notwithstanding the ceaseless efforts of the High 
Church party to Romanize it. 

History leaves no uncertainty upon either of these 
questions, but fully and unequivocally shows that the 
Church of England had its origin in the great Re- 
formation which began under Henry VIII. in the six- 
teenth century ; and also that the Church of England 
is essentially Protestant, in the common acceptation of 
that term. 


Is High Churchism Romanism ? — Extracts from HigJi 
Church Manuals. 

FROM what has preceded, it is clear that the present 
Church of England, which originated in the .six- 
teenth century, is a Protestant Church, and any varia- 
tions from the tenets which are commonly known as 
Protestant doctrine, which appear in its teaching, have 
been brought in by the Romanizing party, as one of 
the results of the compromise in which the Church 
had its origin. 

For several years past most strenuous and daring 
attempts to Romanize this branch of Christ's Church 
have been exhibited, and there is no cessation of their 
efforts, even at the present. They deny that they are 
imitating Rome ; but Rome, and the Christian world, 
know perfectly well that such is the case. 

They profess to aim at the restoration of ancient 
and scriptural modes of worship, yet, strange to say, 
that when they reach their highest aim, it is, as the 
Bishop of Manchester says, " impossible to distinguish 
their teaching and ritual from that of Rome.' But 
where they cannot prudently adopt in full the ritual 
and practices of Rome, they pitifully cry out, that 
they are misrepresented and persecuted by such as 


expose their teaching and show them to be Romish 
perversions of the teachings of God's Word. 

If they teach Romish errors, I am only doing, what 
any one who reveres the " faith once delivered unto 
the saints,'' should do, viz., exposing heresy, and hereti- 
cal teaching. I submit the following facts as proof 
that where the High Church teaching differs from 
Protestant teaching, it teaches Romish doctrine, or, that 
High Churchism is Romanism under a very thin dis- 

I will quote from authorities in the Church of Eng- 
land, and even bishops, as well as from others, whose 
testimony they dare not impeach, and if I prove High 
Churchism lead's to Rome, let them not complain that 
Protestants are warned against their false teaching ; 
but rather let them " cease to do evil and learn to do 
well ' in the future. 

Let them be true to Protestantism and God's Word, 
and all Protestants will rejoice over their conversion 
to the truth. On the other hand, they may rest assured 
that true Protestants will not hold their peace and 
allow High Churchmen to practise the vain tricks 
they call religious worship, in imitation of their Rom- 
ish mother, and yet continue to wear the livery and 
eat the bread of a Protestant Church. They must not 
think that private appeals for sympathy on the claim 
that they are falsely accused of teaching Romish error, 
will satisfy the public that the charges I here make are 
untrue. I shall prove that High Church teaching in- 
cludes the Romish errors of Baptismal Regeneration, 
Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence of Christ's flesh 


and blood in the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper, 
and also the doctrine of Private Confession of sins to 
a priest, accompanied by a pretended absolution by the 
priest, for sins confessed, and also celibacy and prayers 
for the dead. This I shall proceed to establish by 
quotations from unimpeachable sources. 

I shall produce proof found in the books used in 
High Church Sunday-schools, and which have official 
authority for their Romish teaching. I will quote 
from a book now before me. I will copy the title 
page in full, so that there can be no quibbling or eva- 
sion about its authority : 

Series of Instruction Books for Sunday Schools, 
edited by the Right Reverend William Croswell Doane, 
S.T.D., Bishop of Albany. 

Manual of Christian Doctrine, according to the 
Church Catechism, adapted to the Christian Year and 
in Three Uniform Grades. By the Rev. Walker 

" Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the 
faith.' (Col. ii. 7.) 

I will quote from the Senior Grade, and show how 
the best " instructed Sunday-school scholars in the 
Church of England ' are taught Romish doctrines. 

(J. What is the office or work of a prophet ? 

A. To declare with authority the will of God to 
man; sometimes also to foretell future events. 

Q. Does Christ ever exercise Tlis office of a prophet 
through others ? 

A . Yes ; through His ministers in Apostolic Succes- 
sion, etc. (See page 14.) 


Here is the Romish doctrine of Apostolic Succes- 
sion, which has been, and is now, denied and rejected 
by the Protestant part of the Church of England. 


Now for Baptismal Regeneration, which is a Romish 

Q. What name did you receive from the Church ? 

A. My Christian name. 

Q. Why do you say that you received it from the 
Church ? 

A. Because the minister of the Church first named 
me by it when I was christened, OK MADE A CHRISTIAN. 
(See page 19.) 

Q. What nature and name did you receive at your 
baptism ? 

A. 1 was born acain " into the family of Jesus, 
the new man, or second Adam, and received His name, 
of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is 
named. (See page 20.) 

Yet some say the High Church doen not teach that 
a child is born again at his baptism ! Here it is clearly 
stated that he is then " born again." 

(J. When you were baptised, of whom were you 
made a member ? 

A. I was made a member of Christ. 

Q. What is it that can alone make you a member ? 

A. Holy Baptism. ^John iii. 5, p. 23.) 

Q. And what did baptism do for you ? 

A. It made me a member of Christ, and thus 



Can any one deny now that High Church teach- 
ing is that the heart is changed by baptism, in the face 
of these extracts from an authorized publication ? 
And immediately there follows these questions and 
answers : 

Q. What besides did it do for j'ou ? 

A. It gave me. the first gift of God's Holy Spirit. 

Then on p. 33. 

Q. What besides a member of Christ were you 
made in baptism ? 

A. The child of God. 

These quotations prove that the teaching of the 
High Church is that by baptism ALONE one "is MADE A 


AGAIN.'' Christ taught that the change was wrought 
by the Spirit of God, when we trust with true faith 
in Him as orit Saviour. " He that believkth on 
the Son hath eternal life." The apostle said to the 
jailer before he ivas baptized, '' Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," and then after 
he believed, and had been born again through faith, 
he baptized him. High Church teaching is thus 
clearly opposed to Scripture, and ought to be con- 
demned. High Churchism is Romanism. 

Now for th: comparative authorit y of the Scriptures 
and the Church. 

Q. From whom do we get the creed ? 

A. From the Church. 

Q. From whom do we get the Bible ? 

A. From the Church. (See p. 51 .) 

Q. Is it true that the Church is founded upon the 
New Testament ? 


A . Xo ; the Church was f'ouniied on, and by the 
Lord Jesus Christ, before a word of the New Testa- 
ment was written. His ministers preached, baptized, 
confirmed, and administered the Holy Eucharist for 
nearly seventy years before the New Testament was 

Q. What then is the relation of the Church to the 
Scriptures of the New Testament ? 

A. The Scriptures are founded upon the 
Church, instead of the Church bei.\-« founded 
upox the Scriptures (See pp. 110 and 117.) 

To show the falseness of this teaching it is only 
necessary to call to mind that the faith of all Christians 
is that the Scriptures are the written will of God, 
and that the truth they contain was just as fully the 
will of God to man when it was spoketi by inspired 
men, as when it was afterwards written down; in fact, 
the word spoken and the word written, are one, and 
the only known will of God, and it is as small a quib- 
ble to say that ALL the Scriptures were not written till 
seventy years after Christ founded His Church, as it 
is false to say the Scriptures were founded upon the 
Church. God's truth is the foundation of His Church, 
whether the truth be spoken or written, and it is 
essentially and fundamentally false and dangerous to 
say that the Scripture, which is God's truth committed 
to writing, is founded upon the Church. And for this 
reason, t l te Church did not reveal God's truth, but 
" Holy men of old spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost ; " not as they were moved by " the 
Church," as High Church teaching would imply. They 


also spake individully, not as a Church, and they spake 
to the Church by the authority of God, not to the world 
by the authority of the Church. But High Church- 
men do not profess to be Protestants, so we must not 
wonder that they, like the Romanists, declare that 
the Church is superior to the Scripture, as they do, 
when they claim that the Scripture is founded upon 
the Church. High Churchism, is Romanism. 

But to continue the quotations from this High 
Church Manual. 

Q. Is there any danger of this line of succession 
(apostolic) ever having been broken ? 

.4. No; we are surer of it than we are that our 
Bibles of to-day are the true successors of the 
first Bible. (Page 134.) 

High Church teaching, then, is that we are not sure 
that our present Bible is really the Word God did 
actually reveal, but they are perfectly sure that 
their line of Apostolic Succession has never been 
broken. Or, in other words, God has guarded Aposto- 
lic Succession more sacredly than he has preserved His 
own Revealed Word. 

And this is called Religious teaching ' 

Now, as this authorized High Church Manual teaches 
that the New Testament Scriptures are founded upon 
the Church, let us ask for its definition of a Church, 
till we see the foundation upon which the Scriptures 
rest according to their theory. 

Q. What is His Church ? 

A. A company of people who believe in Him as the 
Son of God, and are baptized. (See p. 23.) 


Therefore the teaching of the High Church is that 
the New Testament Scripture is founded upon " a com- 
pany of people who believe in Christ as the Son of 
God, and are baptized," whereas all Protestants know 
that the New Testament Scriptures are based upon the 
fact that. God revealed the truth they contain. And 
further it was not revealed by God to the Church as 
an organic body ; but to inspired men individually, 
and they were commanded to teach it to those who 
listened to their preaching ; and the body of believers 
were to be subject to, and obey the word taught them. 
They submitted themselves to God's revealed word 
spoken by inspired men before it was written, without 
for one moment pretending that the Scriptures were 
founded on them, a company of believers. They 
would have stood aghast at such blasphemy of the 
Word, as the apostles did when deluded fanatics of 
their day wanted to pay them worship, and rob God 
of the glory due to Him. 

Yet such teaching must be necessary to support the 
false s\ r stem adopted by High Churchmen, or they 
would not expose themselves to contempt by accepting 
them. It is the courage of necessity that leads them 
to espouse such absurdities. 

Now what do High Churchmen teach about confes- 
sion to a priest ? 

Q. Why should we confess particularly to a minis- 

A. On principles of common sense ; for, first of all, 
a minister of Christ, being one whose business is the 
saving and oversight of souls, is the most likely to 


guide us aright ; and, secondly, the ministers of Christ 
are commissioned ministers of reconciliation, who have 


Q. Who is to decide whether to allow a confession 
to a priest ? 

A. The minister himself, etc. (P. 152 and 153.) 

And private confession of sins to a priest who pre- 
tends to absolve the penitent is practised in the High 
Church party now. 

Here is the confessional in High Church teaching. 
Listen to the language of one who accepted, and prac- 
tised High Church teaching, about private confession 
to a priest. When " fully instructed " he saw that 
" when confessing to a priest he was confessing to Our 
Lord Himself." 

" I looked on the priest as a commissioned minister,'' 
(that is, before he was fully instructed), "and I did 
not see that it was Our Lord Himself to whom I 
was confessing, and who was speaking to me; nor 
did I see as / have seen since, that the confessor's 
words are not his own, but that he is under the control 
of one v:tu> regulates them in a way of which the priest 
himself is generally unconscious." Quoted from 
"Autobiography in the Church and the World," by Rev. 
Dr. Vaughan, in " Ritualism in the English Church." 
(P. 84.) 

This is the teaching of the High Church on the con- 
fessional. Truly High Churchistn is Romanism. 

Now look at High Church teaching about the Real 
Presence of Christ's Body in the bread and wine. 

First, I will show that what they mean by Christ's 


spiritual body, is the body composed of " flesh and 
bones," which He had after His resurrection, dur- 
ing the forty days He remained on earth before His 
ascension, and not the spiritual body He now has in 
heaven ; and who that reads 1 Cor. xv. 50, " Flesh and 
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," will pre- 
sume to say that Christ has now in heaven the identi- 
cal body of which He said in Luke xxiv. 39, "handle 
M e, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye 
•see Me have,'' and that that body of flesh and bones 
is His spiritual body. Yet this is taught by High 
Churchmen. I quote from the same work as before. 

Q. Will our bodies be raised up in the same condi- 
tion ? 

A. No; they will be raised up spiritual bodies. 

Q. What does this mean ? 

A. Bodies that are endowed with the power of 

Q. What was the condition of our Lord's body after 
He rose? 

A. It was a spiritual body. (Page 78.) (Notice, this 
was before His ascension.) 

Q. Was our Lord very careful to teach His disciples 
that He had a true and real body after He rose ? 

A. Yes ; He told them to behold His hands and feet 
with the marks of the nails still in them. 

Q. What did He say besides ? 

A. " Handle Me, and see ; for a spirit hath not FLESH 


Q. Was His body changed from what it was before 
He died? 


A . Yes ; it became a spiritual body. (That is, it 
became a spiritual body before His ascension.) 

Q. What is that ? 

A. A body that can move and act as a spirit does. 
(Page 79.) 

Here is their description of our Lord's spiritual body, 
a body that " hath flesh and bones," that is, the body 
He had after His resurrection, but which they teach 
was "changed from what it was before He died,'' into 
what it was after His resurrection', and before His 
ascension, and thus the body of "flesh and bones " 
He had during the forty days, during which He was 
on earth, after His resurrection and before His ascen- 
sion, a " spiritual body " in their teaching, yet a body 
of " flesh and bones,' and which took natural food, for 
He ate with His disciples. 

Now they teach that this identical "body of flesh 
and bones" which Christ had after His resurrection, 
and before His ascension, is actually and really 
present in the bread and wine, though they try to 
cover their Romish doctrine of the Real Presence by 
saying " this body of flesh and bones is Christ's spirit- 
ual body." 

Now let it be constantly borne in mind that they 
teach that the body of " flesh and bones " which they 
declare above, is the spiritual body of Christ, is ac- 
tually present in the bread and wine, and is "given, 
taken and received " in the bread and wine. Then 
let none be deceived by the foolish trick they attempt, 
when they talk about " in a spiritual or heavenly 
manner,'' for they believe and declare it is the " body 


of flesh and bones" which is the "spiritual body," 
and affirm that it was a spiritual body, though having 
flesh and bones, because Christ could " pass through 
closed doors, appear and vanish at will," forgetting 
that before our Lord's death he miraculously passed 
through, not merely a door, but a living, thronging 
multitude, unseen. They also forget when they teach 
that Christ's "spiritual, or heavenly body" has flesh 
and blood, that the apostle distinctly afhrms of the 
resurrection body, that flesh and blood cannot inherit 
the kingdom of God. Read 1 Cor. xv. 50-o2. 

But we will now proceed to their teaching about the 
Real Presence of this spiritual body of flesh and bones 
being actually in the bread and wine, and being "given, 
taken, and received" in the Lord's Supper. 

Q. If our Blessed Lord, who is the Truth, and 
whose words are spirit and life, gave men the outward 
part as His body and blood, can there be any doubt 
about our receiving them? 

A. No. The body and blood of Christ must be 
taken and received by the faithful in our Lord's 

Q. After what manner is the body and blood of 
Christ so present as to be given, taken, and eaten in 
the Lord's Supper ? 

A. "Spiritually,'' or in a heavenly and spiritual man- 

Pause here a moment. Do not be deceived by this 
answer in which the terms "spiritually, or in a heavenly 
manner" are used, for I have shown you they do not 
use these terms in their usual and common- sense 


manner. They teach that the body of flesh and blood, 
or as our Lord put it, " flesh and bones/' which He had 
before He went to heaven, was His spiritual body, 
and that it is actually present in the bread and wine ; 
whereas it was not a spiritual body at all, but a body 
of " flesh and bones,' and therefore a body composed 
of matter, hence it could not be in the bread and wine, 
for two bodies of matter cannot occupy the same space 
at the same time, unless we admit that the High 
Church priest who consecrates the elements has the 
power to perform a miracle whenever he wishes. It 
did not become a spiritual body till He ascended into 
the heavens. One would need a High Church dic- 
tionary to understand the unauthorized meaning they 
attach to words. But we will proceed with their 

Q. Does "spiritually' mean unreally or figura- 
tively ? 

A. No. Our Lord was present wij;h His disciples 
most really in flesh and blood after He rose from 
the dead (Luke xxiv. 39), although His presence was 
after an heavenly or spiritual manner, so that His 
body could pass through closed doors and •■ appear " 
and "vanish at will. (John xx. 19; Luke xxiv. 31, 
p. 252.) 

Here they affirm that matter, flesh and bones, are 
present in the manner in which spirit manifests its 
presence, which is an attempt to mystify by talking 
of an impossibility. 

But the statement is that it is not in an unreal 
manner that what they call the "spiritual body of 


Christ,'' which " had flesh and bones " is present, but 
as He was most really present with His disciples in 
flesh and blood, though in what they call His spiritual 
body, so He in the same spiritual body of flesh and 
bones, which terms are self-contradictory, or flesh and 
blood, as they put it in another place, is MOST really 
present in the bread and wine ; in other words, the 
bread is really the flesh of the body which Christ had 
after His resurrection, and before His ascension, and 
the wine is as really, and not figurative]} 7 , the actual 
blood of that body. 

Again another question and answer. 

Q. Is the presence a presence only in the heart of 
the receiver ? 

A. No. The body and blood of Christ are 
" given," as well as " taken and eaten," etc. (P. 253.) 

It is made clear that they do not mean that it is 
only in a " spiritual manner " that Christ is received in 
the believer's heart; but that the flesh and blood of 
the body which he had during the forty days after His 
resurrection, which Christ Himself said had " flesh and 
bones "is not unreally in the bread and wine, but 
ACTUALLY there, and they try to cover the enormity of 
their teaching by the self-contradictory assertion that, 
the body of " flesh and bones " was our Lord's spiritual 
or heavenly bo'dy. 

Here is a foolish and contradictory form of an anti- 
Scriptural and Romish doctrine, viz., that the body of 
Christ, flesh and blood, is actually and really in the 
elements at the Lord's Supper, and this is taught by 
the High Church. 


While High Churchmen thus boldly teach the Real 
Presence of Christ in the bread and wine, I wish to 
call attention to the words of their great divine, whom 
they are proud to call " the judicious Hooker.' In his 
" Fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Polity," page 307, edition 
of 1705, I find these words : " I see NOT in which way 
it should be gathered from the words of Christ, when 
and where, the bread is His body, or the cup is His 


The reader will please notice that their own " judi- 
cious Hooker" here directly contradicts the teach- 
ing of this High Church Manual, which, on page 253, 
asks the question, " Is the presence, a presence ONLY' IN 
the heart of the keceiver ?" and then answers in 
these words, "No; the body and blood of Christ 
are ' given,' as well as ' takkn and eaten.' " Where- 
as Hooker, and all true Protestants say, " Christ is 
present only in the heart and soul of him which 
receiveth them." 

Truly, High Churchism is Romanism. 

This effort of the High Church party to import 
Romish practices into the Protestant Church of Eng- 
land is not simply of recent date. 

In Strype's History of the Reformation, published 
in 1709, chapter 13, page 175, I find proof of the same 
desire. Strypo says : " And the first bishops that 
were made, and who were but newly returned from 
their exiles, as Cox, Grindall, Home, Sandys, Jewell, 
Parkhurst, Bentham, upon their first returns, before 
they entered upon their ministry, labored all they 


could against receiving into the Church the PAPISTICAL 
HABITS, and that all the ceremonies should be clean laid 
aside. But they could not obtain it from the Queen 
and Parliament, and the habits were exacted." 

So, to-day, the successors of that same Papistical 
party strive to introduce " Papistical habits," in proof 
of which I will give a few extracts from another High 
Church Catechism taught in the High Church Sunday- 
schools, and from these samples we can judge of the 
Romanizing tendency of their teaching. 

The questions and answers I submit, are in " Gace's 
Catechism, for the use of Families and Parochial 

Give a brief summary of the Church Catechism. 

A. Into this Church I was admitted by baptism, and 
then received God's Holy Spirit within me, being 
thereby regenerated, that is to say, born again. 
Made one with Christ, and so the child of God ; and if, 
by God's grace, I continue in this state of salvation, I 
shall be finally numbered with the elect, as I am visibly 
so at present. To preserve this grace in me, the 
Saviour of the world appointed the sacrament of the 
most blessed Body and lilood, to be the spiritual food 
and sustenance of the faithful, and His Church the 
instrument of conveying it to me. That this Church is 
one, and that in this country of England, no other 
exists save ttie Anglican Church, etc. 

Q. In what lig^t are we to consider dissenters ? 

A. As heretics. 

Q. And how are we to regard Roman Catholics ? 

A. These are in different case from Protestant 


Dissenters. The Romish Church is a true branch 
of the Catholic Church. 

Q. What is the Catholic Church ? 

A. That visible society of faithful men all over the 
world which is called by the name of Christ. (Quoted 
in Undeceived, pp. 112 and 113.) 

Here is High Churchism in a nutshell. 

They teach their .Sunday-school scholars and their 
children in their families that all Dissexters are 
heretics, but that the Roman Church is a true branch 
of that visible society of faithful men in all the world 
which is called by the name of Christ. 

But to continue this Catechism : 

Q. Can anyone become a Christian without bap- 
tism ? 

A. " No," etc. 

Q. When do we receive forgiveness of sins ? 

A. When we are baptized. 

Q What are the sins hereby forgiven ? 

A. Original and actual. 

Q. What is actual sin ? 

A. Any sin we ourselves actually commit. 

Q. Does baptism entirely cleanse us from these ? 

A. Yes, it places us in a state as though we had 
never committed them. 

Here is taught this fatal error, not to mention minor 
ones, that we receive forgiveness of sins by baptism. 

No wonder that the astute Papist, Cardinal New- 
man, said, " Surely we ought, in comparison with other 
sects, to give our countenance to the Anglican Church. 
They are oar natural, though it may be our covert 


allies' (See Difficulties of Anglicans, vol. i., pp. 2 
and 3.) 

1 submit the following extracts from the book called 
" John Wesley in company with High Churchmen," in 
which the writer states the tenets of the High Church 
party, and, strangely enough, tries to prove that they 
are in harmony with Wesley's teaching. I will not 
notice his unblushing perversions of Wesley's words 
in his vain attempt, but simply quote his words which, 
are in turn evidently quotations from other High 
Church authorities. He says : " Of Penance. Re- 
pentance like every other grace has of necessity an 
inward power and an outward form. These two are 
scripturally expressed in prayer-book language by 
Penitence and Penance. Without acts of 

Penance, Penitence is dead, being alone. The right to 
impose Penance flows naturally from the relation 
which the Church bears to the offender. The 

spiritual necessities of the individual, and the well- 
being of the Church alike bear witness that the im- 
position of Penance is a very useful part of ecclesias- 
tical discipline.'' (P. 50.) 

On the same page he says, referring to priestly 
absolution : — 

" God uses the ministry of man for the remission of 
sins in Baptism, and He has equally promised remis- 
sion of sins by the ministry of man in Absolution.' 

Confession in secret to a priest he advocates earn- 
estly, on page 46, and says of it, " Touching this, the 
Church has always held that what a Priest hears 
under the seal of the confession, he hears only as a 


minister of the Gospel ; and that the highest sacrilege 
would be committed by discovering it to men." 

The benefits, glory and duty of celibacj- are not 
forgotten by this High Churchman. 

He says, " Blessed, blessed of the Lord are they 
(called by whatever name), who abjure things lawful 
in themselves, and for the kingdom of heaven's sake, 
forsake home, house, and lands in order to be without 
carefulness for the things of this world, and to be 
more devoted to their Lord in the service of His 
Church, and poor, and to be holy both in body and 
soul, great is their reward now, in this life, and in the 
world to come. Not- all can receive this saying, but 
he that is able, let him receive it. Specially true is 
this of those called to the priestly office, ' No man that 
warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this 

" A virgin priest the altar best attends, 
Our Lord that state commands not, yet commends.'' 

"In nothing, perhaps, are Protestant ideas more 
directly at variance with God's Word and will, than in 
this article,' etc. But it is not only celibacy for the 
Priests, that Anglicans urge, for this author says, " A 
woman may leave a widowed mother to marry a 
godless man, and this world approves ; ' Marriage is 
woman's vocation,' no tongue is raised against it. 
But for one who in obedience to a higher call leaves 
the house of her father where she may save a house- 
keeper's wages to follow a holy spiritual vocation 
there are no reproaches too bitter." (See pp. 61 and 65.) 

Among the fast days we find the following, " The 


Evens or Vigils before certain festivals of our Blessed 
Lord, of His virgin mother, and of His saints ; a table 
of which is given." (P. 72.) 

On page 74 the author declares, " The instrumental 
means of our justification are the sacraments by which 
God ordinarily conveys it." 

In chapter xiii. where he treats of Prayers for the 
Dead, we find it beginning thus: " Prayer for the 
faithful departed is rooted in the fact that we are 
members of -a community deathless, indissoluble and 
laboring under imperfections, in different degrees, in 
all its parts. No" special need, therefore, for express 
texts authorizing us J,e> do that which, if we pray at 
all, we cannot fail to*do, who, subjects of grace, cannot 
forego praying to Grid to hasten that work of grace, 
which having begun," He is completing, in all, and 
therefore in the" departed, till the 'day of Christ.' We 
cannot even say the Lord's Prayer without using a 
petition for 'the faithful departed. ' Thy kingdom 
come, an event which manifestly concerns them as 
much as it does us ; since on that they wait for the 
perfecting of their bliss ■ and the redemption of the 
body. God's people under both dispensations 

have, with one consent, continued in prayers for the 
dead." (See p. 84.) 

I shall now furnish evidence of another but equally 
forcible eharactef to make good my charge that High 
Churchism is essentially Romanism. 

Read the following from the Romish Cardinal Man- 
ning, once a High Church clergyman : 

"In the last thftty ye*rs, i.e., since 1837, there has 


sprung up in the Anglican establishment an extensive 
rejection of Protestantism, and a sincere desire and 
claim to be Catholic. Protestantism is recognized 

as a thing intrinsically untenable, and irreconcilable 
with the (Roman) Catholic Faith. The school of 
which I speak claim to be Catholic because they inject 
Protestantism with all its heterodoxies. At this 

time the doctrine of the sacraments, their nature, num- 
ber, and graces ; the intercession and invocation of the 
saints ; the power of the priesthood in sacrifice and 
absolution ; the excellence and obligation of the reli- 
gious life ; are all held and taught by clergymen of the 
Church of England. Add to this the practice of 

confession, and the works of temporal and spiritual 
mercy, in form and rule borrowed from the (Roman) 
Catholic Church, all are to be found among those who 
are still within the Anglican communion. I must also 
add the latest and strangest phenomenon of this move- 
ment — the adoption of an elaborate ritual, with its vest- 
ments, borrowed from the (Roman) Catholic Church. 
The multitude worshipping in churches which 
might almost be mistaken for ours is very great. 

They are coming up to the very threshold of the 
(Roman) Catholic Church. They have learned to lean 
upon it as the centre of Christendom, from which they 
sprang, and upon which their own Church is supposed 
to rest. They use our devotions, our books, our 
pictures of piety.'' (Essays on Religion, by Archbishop 
Manning, second series, pp. 12-14, quoted by Lord 
Robert Montagu, in Recent Events and a Clue to their 
Solution, p. 12.) 


Such language as the above, coming from such an 
authority as Cardinal Manning, and corresponding so 
perfectly with facts known to the reading public, 
prove conclusively that High Ciiurchism is Humanism. 

Archbishop Sumner truly said of the Puseyites, or 
High Churchmen of his day : " They have gone on 
from one Romish practice, and one Romish tenet to 
another, until all that is distinctive op Protes- 
NIGH DISAPPEARED.'' (Quoted by Lord Robert Mon- 
tagu, p. 6'6.) 

The late Rev. Dr. Fraser, Bishop of Manchester, 
says : " There exists among us an extreme party, the 
Ritualists, which entertain opinions on the communion, 
the Invocation of the Holy Virgin and saints, and 
absolution, which it is impossible to distinguish 


Rome." Then Bishop Fraser continues, " I cannot give 
my approval to such doctrines ; and when X turn to 
the principles of the Prayer Book, I foresee for the 
Church of England, a period of troubles in the near 
present ; while, for the future, which is very menacing, 
and very near, I foresee a series of disaster and ulti- 
mate destruction." (Montagu, pp. 68, 69.) 

When a bishop in the Church of England sounds 
the alarm in such earnest language it is full time for 
the Protestants in every parish to ask, Is this High 
Church malarial poison breathed by my children in 
their Sunday School teaching ? Is it insiduously 
taught by my minister ? And they should not allow 
any veneration for their spiritual guides to hinder an 


honest and searching investigation. Their loyalty to 
true Protestant teaching and to God demands it. 

Again on page 69 : " The new Bishop of Lincoln, 
whom Mr. Gladstone appointed last year, 1885, has 
affirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation ; has advo- 
cated a visible communion between the Church of 
England and the Church of Rome ; and in the Com- 
municants' Manual has recommended a number of 
Romish works as suitable for meditation and devo- 
tion. He also insists on confession and absolution 
as a substantial part of elementary instruction ; and 
teaches the practice of praying for the dead." 

One extract from the Communicants' Manual will 
suffice : " The consecration is the central act of 

the service by which the bread and wine are made 
verily and indeed the body and blood of 
Christ and are offered to God the Father as the 
Eucharistic sacrifice.'' (Recent E rents and a Clue 
to their Solution, pp. 69, 70.) This is the teaching of 
the bishop of the Church of England who published 
the Communicants' Manual, which is now in use as a 
book of religious instruction. 

Again I quote from The Churchman Armed, pp. 63 
and 64. The sermon is by the Rev.Dr. Miller,of Lincoln 
College, Oxford. He laments the strong Romish ten- 
dencies which are gaining ground in the Episcopalian 

" What, we ask, is our Church ? What right has the 
Church of England to her present position, unless it 
be that she is distinctively a Reformed and Pro- 
testant Church ? We have no honest standing in the 


country if our Church is not distinctly Reformed and 
Protestant. The common sense and the moral sense 
of the people of England will see, and has seen this, 
that, however much you may quibble upon an expres- 
sion here and there in the Pra} r er Book, it is a mon- 
strous demand upon the credulity of the Church and 
nation to make believe that, after all, a man may 
remain among us with integrity before God and man, 
while the whole of his ministrations are devoted to 


and to accustoming the people to the creed and wor- 
ship of that Church, which the Church of England has 
pronounced to be idolatrous. Your Church in her 
Prayer Book has distinctly put the brand of idolatry 
on the forehead of the Church of Rome. * 

It is for this reason that we stand amongst you to 
protest that the Church of England knows nothing of 
much that is being introduced in some places. Altars ! 
What does the Church of England know of altars ? 
Show me the passage in which the Lord's Table is 
called an 'altar.' There is not such a solitary place, 
— not a rubric, not a prayer, — in the whole Prayer 
Book in which it is so designated. We are prepared 
to show you by no deep research, but by simply taking 
down a volume which is probably on the shelves of 
every clergyman in Ipswich, that this is not a matter 
of chance ; but that obviously on deliberation and of 
set purposes and design, that word was gradually elim- 
inated from the Prayer Book, and the Romish altar 
became the honest communion table of the Church of 
England. Again, we ask, show us any passage in the 


New Testament in which the minister of God is called 
by the Greek term for a sacrificing priest. There is 
not one solitary passage ix the range of the 
New Testament in which the minister is thus 
designated. It seems somewhat strange that the 

present crisis should be chosen in England to reconcile 
the minds of the people to that which is Romish. 
This is the Church of Rome into which the people of 
England are to be gradually led ' Some through the 
door of aesthetics. Such beautiful music ! Such gor- 
geous architecture ! Such exquisite churches ! Such 
striking processions ! Brethren be on your guard. 

Remember that, through an undue devotion to these 
things, and as if caught on the hook baited by these 
things, many a poor victim has gone over to the Church 
of Rome. Be on your guard and recollect that, wher- 
ever the mind is gradually attaching undue importance 
to ceremonials and externals, it is proportionably de- 
clining and decaying in that which is spiritual." 

I cannot present all the Romish tenets which the 
High Church faction is endeavoring to introduce 
into the Protestant Church of England, but I will 
refer the curious reader to the book entitled, Audi 
Alteram Partem, or, High Church, by a clergyman of 
the Episcopal Body in England, the Rev. Hely A. 
Smith, who shows that High Church teaching includes 
Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, Auricular 
Confession and Priestly Absolution, the Celibacy of 
the Clergy, Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory. 

The author makes the following quotations from a 
book called The Cliarch, and Liberties of England, 


by Nevison Loraine, pp. 56 and 57. " Celibacy be- 
yond the limits of the priesthood is urged in Three 
Voids, by Rev. W. Humphrey. It is said: 'perpetual 
continence is requisite in order to religion.' The 
Church News is ' perfectly convinced,' it says : ' of the 
desirability of the celibate life for men ' — but when 
the men are celibate who will marry the women ? So 
it is celibacy all round that this organ urges as largely 
desirable for the Christian Church. The quotation 
(April 7, 1869) is, — 'We are perfectly convinced that 
until the celibate life, especially for Priests, is very 
widely recognized and practised among us, we should 
be lacking in an important feature necessary to the 
perfection of the Christian Church. Therefore the 
hope of the perfection of the Christian Church increases 
with the diminution of the human race, and I suppose, 
fulfilled by its extinction.' 

This is what High Churchism is, when full blown. 
They begin by teaching the doctrines of Baptismal 
Regeneration and Apostolic Succession, and by them 
prepare the way for Confession, Absolution, Prayers 
for the dead and Celibacy, which is contrary to the 
Divine Law, and has been productive of more im- 
purity and misery than time can reveal. 

Truly High Churchism is Romanism. 

Much more might be added, if necessary, to prove 
that High Churchism is Romanism, and that Cardinal 
Newman was correct when he said of High Churchmen, 
in their relation to the Papal Church, " They are her 
natural, though it may be her covert, allies, they are 
faithful nurses and conservators of her spirit." {Diffi- 
culties of Anglicans, vol. i, p. 6.) 


Were it not for the Protestantism of the Evan- 
gelicals, the High Church party would soon make 
peace with Rome, and bow their willing necks to her 
servile yoke, but it would be a peace as devoid of 
honor, in the present, as it would be despoiled of 
hope for the future. 

Effects of the False Teaching of High 

Some young person may ask what evils follow the 
teaching of these High Church doctrines ? 

To fully and explicitly answer this important ques- 
tion would require more space than I can devote to it, 
but I will briefly indicate some of the serious and 
even fatal results which follow what is called Sacra- 
mentarian teaching, which is the theory of the High 
Church faction, and of the Romanist. 

Sacramentarian teaching means that the salvation 
of the soul is to be obtained through receiving the 
sacraments of the Church, and destroys the simple and 
Gospel plan of a personal faith in Christ alone as He 
is offered to us in the Gospel. Baptismal Regeneration, 
the Real Presence, "Apostolic Succession, etc., etc., are 
parts of the Sacramentarian theory. 

They all lead to a trust in the ceremonials of reli- 
gious worship, and foster and develop a trust in the 
form of worship, and hinder, in a vast majority of 
cases, that true spiritual worship through a personal 
faith in Christ which the Gospel requires as essential 
to salvation. 


The full effects of this sacramenfcarian, or ritualistic 
form of worship may be seen in the Roman Catholic 
Church. Any one who has had an extensive and in- 
timate acquaintance with the members of that Church, 
will have discovered that a vast majority rest in the 
ceremonial observances of their Church for salvation, 
while comparatively few obtain the conception of re- 
ceiving salvation simply as the outcome of a godly 
sorrow for sin, followed by a conscious, personal 
trust in Christ; in other words, the sacramentarian 
theory, whether taught by Roman Catholics or High 
Churchmen, exalts unto undue importance the forms 
of worship, or the sacraments, and obscures the Gospel 
doctrine of justification by faith, so fully and clearly 
expressed in Scripture as the God-appointed means of 

" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt 
be saved " is the burden of the Gospel message ; but 
the High Church party cry out, " receive the sacra- 
ments of the Church and you shall be saved.'' 

Christ says, "Verily, verily, I sa}' unto thee, except a 
man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," 
and then tells how to obtain this new life which is the 
new birth, when He says, " He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life ;" but the High Church party 
says, you were " born again when you were baptized," 
for this is their doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as 
I have shown above. Do not think, however, that all 
the members of the Church of England believe that 
doctrine, for I have shown it is the High Church party 
in the Episcopal body, who hold it, and that the Pro- 


testants in that Church absolutely deny it as unscrip- 
tural and dangerous. 

The exposition of this one doctrine must suffice for 
the present, hut much more might be brought forward 
to prove that these teachings fatally obscure the plan 
of salvation as laid down in the Gospel, and tend to 
destroy precious souls for whom Christ died. 

If the Protestantism of to-day in the Church of 
England is a worthy successor of the Protestantism of 
the past, it will rise in its might and shake off this 
deadly incubus of High Churchism, alias Romanism. 


Is the Episcopal Form of Church Government Prescribed in 
Scripture 1 Is it the only Valid Form for a Christian 
Church ? 

THE High Church claim is, that the Episcopal form 
of Church Government is prescribed in the 
Word of God as the only valid form for the organiza- 
tion of the Church on earth. 

We are told with marvellous complacency that, 
" Episcopacy is necessary because it is of Divine insti- 
tution, and because the Church of God has been 
governed in that way for upwards of three thousand 
years.'' (See Methodism vs. The Olturch, p. 24.) 

This they evidently consider an axiomatic truth, 
hence, in their opinion, it is necessary simply to state it, 
and ■it will find immediate acceptance. 

It may be that after an examination of the proofs 
upon which this assertion rests, it will be not only 
regarded as unsusceptible of proof, but also extremely 
improbable, and still more, positively contradictory 
to the testimony of the Scriptures and history. 

Let us examine the new Church organization as 
shown in the New Testament, and as understood by 
the early Fathers and the vast majority of the Pro- 
testant churches of to-day. 


1st. The New Testament. Does it establish beyond 
a doubt the necessity of three orders, for if such were 
necessary, no one who believes in the Divine revela- 
tion will suppose for one moment that it would be 
left a matter of doubt ? 

In Acts 20th chapter, the 17th to the 28th verses, 
we have an example of the use of the terms pres- 
byter and bishop, as applied to the same persons. 
In the 17th verse, Paul called to him the elders, the 
" presbuterous ' of the congregation, and addresses 
them as elders; then in the 28th verse, still speaking 
to the same persons, he says : " Take heed, therefore, 
unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you ' episcopous,'" translated 
in the old version, the critical English New Testament, 
and Wesley's Testament, " overseers," but in the Re- 
vised Version and in the translation by Dr. Alford, 
Dean of Canterbury, "bishops.'' 

On the word " presbuterous " Dean Alford, in his 
Greek Testament, makes this comment: " Presbuterous 
is called in verse 28th episcopous. This circumstance 
began very early to contradict the growing views of 
the apostolic institution and necessity of prelatical 
episcopacy. Thus Iremeus iii, 11, 2, page 201, 'In 
Miletus having called together the bishops and elders 
who were at Ephesus and from the adjoining cities.' 
Here we see (1) the two, the bishops and presbyters 
distinguished, as if both were sent for, in order that 
the titles might not seem to belong to the same per- 
sons, and (2) other neighboring churches brought in, 
in order that there might not seem to be episcopoi, 


(bishops) in one church only. That neither of these 
was the case is clearly shown by the plain words of 
this verse, ' He sent to Ephesus and summoned the 
elders of the church.' So earl}- did interested and disin- 
genuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which 
the Scriptures might have thrown on ecclesiastical 
questions. The English version has hardly dealt fairly 
in this case with the sacred text in rendering episco- 
pous, verse 28, overseers, whereas it ought there as in 
all other places, to have been bishops, that the fact of 
elders and bishops having been originally and aposto- 
lieally synonymous might be apparent to the ordinary 
English reader, which now it is not.' 

The italics are Dean Alford's own, and are designed 
to give emphasis and call attention particularly to such 
portions. He here shows conclusively that the position 
of High Churchmen, that elders and bishops were dif- 
ferent orders, is false. The elders and bishops at that 
time were one order according to Dean Alford, and he 
is correct. 

Again in Titus i. 5-7 : " For this cause I left thee 
in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I 
had appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband 
of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of 
riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the 
steward of God." Here again the terms elder and 
bishop are applied to the one person. No difference 
then between a presbyter and elder, and a bishop. 

But how did the early Fathers write of elders and 
presbyters ? 


Clemens Romanus says : " In the country and cities 
where the apostles preached, they ordained their first 
converts for bishops, and deacons over those who 
should believe." And again he writes : " The apostle 
foreknew through our Lord Jesus Christ that conten- 
tion would arise about the word episcopacy, and there- 
fore being endued with a perfect knowledge appointed 
the aforesaid officers, viz., bishops and deacons, and 
left the manner of their succession described, so that 
when the}' died, other approved men might succeed 
them and perform their office." 

Only two orders mentioned by Clemens Romanus, 
even when describing the method of governing the 

But I close this part by a quotation from Stilling- 
neet, where he is explaining a passage from Jerome on 
this subject, which had been perverted by some com- 
mentators. Stillingfleet says of Jerome : *' Is it imag- 
inable that a man who had been proving all along 
the superiority of & presbyter above a deacon because 
of his identify with a bishop in the apostles' times, 
should at the same time say a bishop was above a 
presbyter by the apostles' institution, and thus so 
directly overthrow all he had been saying before ? " 

Thus, in the Scripture the words meant the same 
thing, and the early fathers above quoted understood 
them to mean only one order. 

Now, we turn to the powers exercised by bishops 
and presbyters, and in this line of search we will find 
convincing proof that the two terms designated but 
one and the same order. 


Let us read the account given of the ordination of 
Barnabas and Saul, and see how many of the apostles 
were there, as according to High Churchmen they, as 
the bishops, only had power to ordain. It is found 
in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, 
and not a word about apostles being present, which 
would certainly have been mentioned had they been 

Acts xiii. 1-3 : " Now there were in the Church 
that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as 
Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and 
Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been 
brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As 
they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy 
Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the 
work whereunto I have called them. And when they 
had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, 
they sent them away.'' 

Not a word about apostles being present, for there 
was not one of them there ; but it says, " prophets 
and teachers,'' and mentions the principal ones among 

High Churchmen have tried to break the force of 
this Scripture, which destroys their theory, by saying, 
" It was not an ordination ; I reply, it is the only 
ecclesiastical ordination of Barnabas and Saul of which 
we have any account, and it is futile to dispute it. It 
was a separation of them to the work to which the 
Holy Spirit had called them, viz., the ministry of the 
word, and it was done by the presbytery, and by the 
laying on of hands, and prayer. Can any proof be 


asked clearer than this, that the power of ordination 
was in the presbytery? 

Wesley is quoted, to prove that it was not an ordina- 
tion; but a careful reading will show that he wished 
to present the real source of Paul's authority to 
preach, viz.: that it came from the Divine call, and 
that the Divine call was the true, and only essential 
ordination to the work of the ministry, which is the 
view of Luther also. 

Look at Wesley's words carefully: "This was not 
ordaining them," by which he evidently means, " this 
was not the source of their authority to do the work 
upon which they were about to enter." 

"St. Paul was ordained long before, and that not of 
man, neither by men." It is perfectly clear that Wes- 
ley refers to the original and essential source from 
which Paul derived his authority, and ascribes it ex- 
clusively to the call to the ministry, which came from 
God, and not from nun, and he wished to show the 
absolute necessity for a Divine call antecedent to human 

But, while Paul based his authority to preach solely 
upon the Divine call, he still accepted the usual sanc- 
tion of the Church, for Wesley says in the same note, 
"It was only inducting him to the province for which 
our Lord had appointed him from the beginning, and 
which was now revealed to the prophets and teachers. 
So we are perfectly consistent in saying that this was 
the ordination of Paul by the Church, for according to 
Wesley, it was the huiuan or churchly induction of 
Paul to the work, " to which " the Holy Spirit said, 


"I have called him.' It was not the Divine call, or 
authority to the apostolic office, but it ivas the Church's 
public acknoxcledgmeid of the claim made by Paul 
and Bam-ibas that God had called them to this tvork, 
and was the Church's appointment or ordination to 
the work to which they were called, viz. : Paul, called 
of God, to the work of an apostle, and Barnabas, called 
by the Spirit, to the work of preaching the Gospel. But 
Barnabas was not called of God, nor appointed by the 
Church to the work of an apostle, but as a preacher, 
in the office of presbyter, and he here receives the 
Church's authorization for that office, as Paul receives 
it to the apostolic office, to which he was already called 
of God, and they both received their ecclesiastical 
authority from the hands of presbyters. 

But was this actually Paul's ordination by the 
Church. Dean Alford in speaking of it says : " This 
was a new fasting and special prayer for Barnabas and 
Saul. Fasting and prayer have ever been connected 
with the solemn times of ordination by the Christian 
Church." He believes it was " a solemn time of ordi- 
nation." See Lange on this passage, as follows : 

" The apostolate of Paul, strictly speaking, begins 
on the occasion of this mission, — he is now first sent 
forth. Saul too was called by Jesus Christ, 

but it is only at this comparatively late period, after 
sufficient time had been afforded for his internal 
growth, and his progress in the Divine life that he 

is actually sent, and enters upon his glorious career as 
the apostle of the Gentiles. It is the Holy Ghost who 
calls him to his great work, but men are the agents of 


the Holy Ghost. It is some one of the Christian pro- 
phets in Antioch, through whose mouth the Holy 
Spirit says that Barnabas and Saul should be separ- 
ated for the work, and it is the Church that receives 
this command and, dedicate* the two men to their 

work by the im/msitioii of hands and then sends them 

In Poole's Commentary we find in regard to this act 
performed by the prophets and teachers upon Paul. 
2nd. ' The approbation of the Church to the Heavenly 
call they had." What is this but ordination ? 

See also Burkitt's Commentary : Note 2. " Separate 
me Paul and Barnabas." Here note first : " That the 
work of the ministry is a separate work. Ministers 
must be set apart for the work of the ministry before 
they undertake it. Second, a call from God is not 
sufficient without a separation by men. Third, that 
this separation ought to be performed by the chief 
ministers of the Church who have authority from 
Christ to separate and set others apart for the work 
of the ministry. 

Note 3. That this solemn act and ordinance ought 
to be performed in a very solemn manner by fasting 
and prayer anil by the imposition of hands.'' 

It is perfectly clear that Burkitt also, who was high 
authority in the Episcopalian Church, holds that Paul 
was then ordained. 

See also Jamieson, Faussett and Brown on the same 
passage. " Sent them away with the double call of 
the Si^rit first, and. next of the Church. So clothed 
their mission is thus described. They being sent forth 


by the Holy Ghost. Have we not here for all time 
the true principle of appointment to sacred office." 

This is another standard authority in favor of the 
position that Paul was then ordained. 

I will add but one more testimony to those already 
given to prove that Paul was ordained by others than 
apostles, and that the ceremony in Acts, 13th chapter, 
was his ordination to the work of the ministry. 

See Pulpit Commc ntary. Rev. Canon H. D. M. 
Spence, M.A., vol. Acts, Exposition by the Right Hon. 
and Rev. A. C. Hervey, D.D., Loril Bishop of Bath and 
Wells, on Acts, 13th chapter, 3rd verse: "Doubtless on 
receiving this intimation of the Spirit they fixed a day 
for the ordination and prepared for it by fasting and 

But I need not multiply proofs by quoting from the 
most learned divines even in the Church of England, 
thus taking witnesses out of the ranks of our oppo- 
nents, for what 1 have given already abundantly estab- 
lishes my position, that Paul was then ordained, and 
that it was done by presbyters. 

I have given quotations from leading divines to 
prove that the simple plain statement of the Scripture 
is undoubtedly to be taken just as it reads, and that 
Paul was then ordained by men who were, not apostles. 

It is clear, therefore, that Paul's ordination was per- 
formed by men who were neither apostles nor bishops 
in the High Church sense, hence it was a presbyterial 
ordination, and totally destroys the fiction of an episco- 
pacy in High Church form in apostolic times. 

Again, Paul says to Timothy in 1st Timothy iv. 14 : 


" Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given 
thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the 
presbytery." Here the power of ordination is said 
by Paul to be exercised by the presbytery. Paul said 
in the second epistle to Timothy : " Stir up the gift of 
God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." 
Paul probably presided at the meeting of the pres- 
bytery, and joined with the presbyters when the cere- 
mony of "the lnyiwj on of the Illinois of the presby- 
tery " v:us performed. 

Then it is clear from Scripture that the power to 
ordain rested in, and was exercised by, -presbyters. 
There is no place for three orders yet, nor are they 
found here. 

Let us now examine the evidence the early Fathers 
give of the exercise of the power of ordination by the 
elders. Having established that presbyters, or elders, 
and bishops, were one order by the Scripture, it is not 
necessary to adduce any proof from the Fathers, but 
as High Churchmen claim that the " Church was be- 
fore the Scriptures " and " formed the Scriptures,'' to 
satisfy such as hold this view, I will give the evidence 
of some of the Fathers to prove that presbyters, as 
such, did ordain others presbyters, and appointed some 
to the office of " overseer " or " bishop.'' 

Firmillian says : " All power and grace is con- 
stituted in the Church, where sen iors preside who have 
the power of baptizing, confirming, and ordaining." 
And Tertullian defines what is meant by seniors. He 
says: " In the ecclesiastical courts approved elders 


Elders had, and exercised, the power of ordaining at 
that date. 

Moshiem's Testimony. 

Moshiem says : " Xeither Christ Himself nor His 
holy apostles have commanded anything clearly, or 
expressly, concerning the external form of the Church, 
and the precise method according to which it should 
be governed. (See part ii. p. 85.) Again he says, on 
p. 88, part ii. : "The rulers of the Church were called 
either presbyter* or hilltop*, which two titles are in the 
New Testament undoubtedly applied to the same order 
of men." 

Hear Archbishop Cranmer's reply to the question, 
" Whether bishops or priests were made first ? and if 
the priests first, then the priests made the bishops.'' 
Cranmer answered : " The bishops and priests were at 
one time, and were not two things ; but both one in 
office at the beginning of Christ's kingdom." 

I will quote from Wesley, and show his opinions on 
this question. 

Wesley's View. 

"As to my own judgment, I still believe the episco- 
pal form of Church government to be Scriptural and 
apostolical. I mean well agreeing with the practice 
and writings of the apostles, but that it is prescribed 
in Scripture I do not believe. This opinion, which I 
once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed 
of ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet's Lreiiieiim. 
I think he has unanswerably proved that neither 
Christ nor His apostles prescribe any particular form 


of Church government, and that the plea for the 
diocesan episcopacy was never heard of in the primi- 
tive Church!' 

Bishop Lightfoot says: "At the close of the aposto- 
lic age the two lower orders of the threefold ministry 
were firmly and widely established ; but traces of the 
third and highest order, the episcopate properly so 
called, are few and indisfinef." (See Ferahj Lecture, 
1885, p. 3, quoted from Lit/htfoot, Phil., p. 193). 

Lightfoot is a favorite authority with High Church- 
men, who quote him to prove this doctrine, but he 
adds a strong, though it may be unwilling, testimony 
to its falsity, by admitting that even " traces of it at 
the close of the apostolic age are few and indistinct." 
Here Bishop Lightfoot admits that at the very time 
when, if there had been such a thing as episcopacy, the 
proofs would have been plain and perfectly convincing, 
no proof can be found, and that even the " traces of a 
third, order are few o.vd indistinct." Is it possible to 
conceive that if episcopacy ..was an essential part of 
the Divine plan for the ministry of the Word, that 
God would have esteemed it so lightly, that He would 
have allowed it to become so perfectly obscured that 
a profound scholar like Bishop Lightfoot, would not be 
able to find one clear and positive proof of its existence, 
nor even one distinct trace of it 1 and this, at the very 
time in the history of the Church when positive proof 
would have been found, if such order had an existence^ 
It is simply inconceivable that it should be so. And 
again, why should " the tiro lower orders be firmly 
and widely established," and the " highest/' and conf'es- 


sedly most important one, have not one clearly attested 
credential, and only "few avd indistinct traces." 

It affords presumptive evidence, amounting to a 
moral certainty, that episcopacy is not a Divine insti- 
tution, and therefore not necessary to a true Christian 

For a spirited description of the rise and develop- 
ment of the episcopacy, which is too lengthy to insert 
here, I refer the reader to Goh'mtnis Apostolic and 
Primitive Church, chapters, vii. to x., inclusive. I 
will give bub one of the author's quotations, to show 
the nature of the institution at an early date. He 
quotes from Jerome A.D. 400, lib. 2, in Ezech, c. 4, 
vol. iii. p. 943 as follows: " The bishops by their pride 
and base deeds are a reproach to their name. In the 
place of humility they manifest pride, as though they 
had acquired honor, and not disgrace ; and whenever 
they perceive one to have gained an influence by 
rightly handling the Word of God they seek by 
destruction to oppose him.' (See p. 304.) 

But to return to the question, whether in the early 
Church the words bishops and presbyter were applied 
to the same persons, and the same order, thus proving 
there were not three orders in the ministry, we now 
quote from a remarkable manuscript called the Di- 
dache, or the Tench imj of the Ticelce Apostles, which 
was discovered in the year 1873 in the library of the 
Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre, in 

For brevity's sake I will quote but one of the testi- 
monies which prove that bishop and presbyter were 


used to describe the same order in the ministry, and 
that, therefore, the ordinations performed by presbyters 
are scripturally valid. In this manuscript it is said : 
" Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons 
worthy of the I/ird," etc. (Chap. xv. 1.) 

Commenting on this verse, Dr. Philip ScriafT, says : 
" The local churches, or individual congregations, are 
ruled by bishops, or deacons 'elected, or appointed by 
the people.'' Dr. SchafF also remarks : " The bishops 
of the Didache (another name for ' The Teaching of 
the Twelve Apostles') are identical with the presby- 
ters, hence the latter are not mentioned at all." (See 
Didache, p. 73). So also Bishop Lightfoot wrote re- 
garding this same thing : " When our author wrote, 
bishop still remained a synonym for presbyter, and 
the episcopal office properly so-called had not been 
constituted in the district in which he lived.'' (See 
Didache, p. 7±, foot note.) 

We turn to the work of the Rev. John Stoughton, 
D.D., and in his Primitive k'cclesia,, we find these 
words : " He (Paul) described to Timothy what a 
bishop should be, evidently meaning by a bishop the 
same officer he subsequently called ait elder." (Kcclesia, 
p. 10.)" 

Again on page 11 : " Officers of the latter kind 
whom they ordained are called elders or overseers, 
presbyters or hislmps-, wortl* use<l interchangeably, 
about which there has been much controversy. These 
words have acquired in the coarse of time technical 
significations pointing to what are styled two orders, 
but that no sucli technical distinction exists in the 


New Testament, distinguished Episcopalian scholars 
are prepared to admit. We may then at once 

set the distinction aside/' etc. 

Rev. J. Radford Thompson on " The Orders,'' (see 
Eeciexia, p. 62): ' In Apostolic times, however, two 
orders of officers were universal. First in point of 
time came deacons. Then came the presbyters, 

or bishops,' etc. 

Referring to what he styles the " genuine First 
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians/' the writer 
says : " There is no trace at all of the subsequent dis- 
tinction between the bishop and the presbyter ; as in 
the New Testament these terms are used converti- 
bly to designate the same officer," and refers to 
1 Epis. Clem., chap xliv., and proceeds, " There are 
only two orders of ministry — bishops or presbyters 
and deacons. The apostles,' says Clement, ,: appointed 
the first fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, 
to be bishops and deacons of those who should after- 
wards believe.' (See Ecclcsi/t, p. 67.) 

" Polycarp's extant Epistle professes to be from 
Polycarp and the presbyters with him to the Church 
of God sojourning at Philippi. In if is no mention of 
three order* of the ministry ; the duty is affirmed of 
being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto 
God and Christ, and the character and ministrations 
of these officers are described." (Polycarp lived, 
A.D. 96.) 

I will add extracts from a few more of the many 
authorities, to convince believers in episcopacy of the 
folly of the claim that episcopacy was enjoined in 


the Scriptures; and, as usual, I will bring the greater 
part of my witnesses out of the very Church some of 
whose members so boldly assert this claim. The first 
of these extracts will be from a book called, The 
Cliurchvian Armed, and from a sermon by the Rev. 
James Bardsley, Rector of St. Ann's, Manchester, 
England. (See p. 198) : " I need not, my brethren, re- 
mind you that there are persons amongst us who 
would exaggerate this amongst other things, and who 
would tell you that episcopacy is necessary to the 
very existence of the Church. I believe the person 
who says it, affirms it without any direct evidence from 
the Church of England." 

Then on page 200, the same clergyman sa3 r s : " I say, 
therefore, that while I hold episcopacy is of divine 
origin, and is essential to the perfet'iuni of the Church* 


England with him, but, T am convinced, he cannot 
quote the name of a single great luminary of the 
Church of England in defence of such a theory'. 
" I go not only to the judicious Hooker, to Bishop 
Hall, and Archbishop Usher, where I do not find it, 
but I go to the highest churchmen, to Archbishop 
Bramhall, to Bishop Cousins, and to churchmen of the 
highest type, and I find they maintain no such thing. 
It is, of course, easy for me, in the pulpit, to make 
such an assertion, and therefore to shield my assertion 
I would say — if any of you will read the sermons de- 
livered by the late Bishop of London (Bishop Blom- 
field — and no one will accuse him of Low Churchman- 


ship) at the consecration of the first Bishop of Jeru- 
salem, you will see how he quotes the names of Hall, 
Hooker, Usher, Bramhall, and others, like the latter, 
who are called high and orthodox churchmen ; but all 
agree in saying, that while episcopacy is essential to 
the v<W/-being, it is not essential to the beiiuj of the 
Church. This distinction, my brethren, I think most 
important. The word Church means, then, a number 
of congregations all joined together, presided over by 
their own pastors, and they by a chief pastor ; the 
Church itself being called by the name of the city or 
region in which it wan located." 

We will also quote from Hallam to prove that this 
doctrine of episcopacy as necessary to a valid Church 
of Christ, was not held bv the early Church of Eng- 
land, hut was brought in subsequently by the High 
Church, or Romish party. 

On the 522nd page of his Constitutional History 
of England, he says : " Reflecting men would perhaps 
be apt to say that the usage of primitive antiquity, 
upon which all parties laid so much stress, was rather 
a presumptive argument against the adoption of any 
system of Church government.'' 

Again, he shows that, not only was the presbyterial 
form of ordination admitted by them to be true and 
valid, but it was common to admit such as had been 
thus ordained to the exercise of all the duties of the 
ministry in the Church of England. In a foot-note 
on page 281, Hallam says: "It is evident, by some 
passages in Strype, attentively considered, that natives 
regularly ordained abroad in the Presbyterian 


Churches, were admitted to hold preferment in Eng- 
land ; the first bishop who objected to them seems to 
have been Aylmer. Instances, however, of foreigners 
holding preferment without any re-ordination, may be 
found down to the civil wars." 

Another foot-note on the same page informs us that : 
" Laud had been reproved by the University of Ox- 
ford, in 1604, for maintaining in his exercise for 
Bachelor of Divinity, that there could be no true Church 
without bishops," clearly showing that the University 
not only rejected that assumption, but strongly repro- 
bated it. And in the same note, he says : " The divine 
right of episcopacy is said to have been laid down by 
Bancroft in his famous sermon at St. Paul's Cross in 
1588, but I do not find anything in it to that effect. 
Cranmer and most of the original founders of the 
Anglican Church, so far from maintaining the divine 
and indispensable right of episcopal government, held 
bialiops and prients to be the vnme order." 

In recording the efforts to force the doctrine of epis- 
copacy upon the new Protestant Church of England, 
by Bancroft, Xeile and Laud, Hallam says, " They 
began by preaching the Divine right, as it is called, or 
absolute indispensability of episcopacy, a doctrine of 
which the first traces, as I apprehend, are found about 
the end of Elizabeth's reign. They insisted on the 
necessity of episcopal succession regularly derived 
from the apostles.'' (See Constitutional Hidory of 
England, pp. 280 and 281). 

Then, on pages 524 and 525, this significant record 
is found, which reveals the paternity of this theory in 


the Church of England, to be in the High Church 
party. "The malignity of those who chiefly managed 
Church affairs at this period, displayed itself in an- 
other innovation tending to the same end. It had 
been not unusual from the very beginning of our 
reformation, to admit ministers ordained in foreign 
Protestant Churches to benefices in England. No re- 
ordination had ever been practised with respect to 
those who had received the imposition of hands in a 
regular Church ; and hence it appears that the Church 
of England, whatever tenets might latterly have been 
broached in controversy, did not consider the ordina- 
tion of presbyters invalid. Though such ordinations 
as had taken place during the late troubles, and by 
virtue of which a great part of the actual clergy were 
in possession, were evidently irregular on the supposi- 
tion that the English Episcopal Church was then in 
existence ; yet, if the argument from such great con- 
venience as men call necessity was to prevail, it was 
surely worth while to suffer them to pass without 
question for the present, enacting provisions, if such 
were required, for the future. But this did not fall in 
with the passion and policy of the bishops who found 
a pretext for their worldly motives of action in the 
swppot-ed Divine right, and necessity of episcopal suc- 
cession, a theory naturally more agreeable to arrogant 
and dogmatical ecclesiastics, than that of Cranmer, who 
saw no intrinsic difference betvjeen bishoyis and priests; 
or of Hooker, who thought ecclesiastical superiorities, 
like civil, subject to variation; or of Stillingneet, who 
had lately pointed out the impossibility of ascertaining 


beyond doubtful conjecture the real constitution of the 
Apostolic Church, from the scanty and inconclusive 
testimonies that either Scripture or antiquity furnish." 

" It was therefore enacted in the statute for uni- 
formity, that no person should hold any preferment in 
the Church of England without having received epis- 
copal ordination." Thus presbyterial ordinations were 
recognized, both theoretically and practically, by the 
Church of England till the year A.D., 1661, when the 
Eomish views of the High Church party obtained the 
ascendency over the Protestant element, and episcopacy 
was by parliament made theonly valid form for the gov- 
ernment of a true Church of Christ. Maeaulay, speak- 
ing of the formation of the Church of England, says : 
" The founders of the Anglican Church took a middle 
course. They retained episcopacy, but they did not 
declare it to be an institution essential to the welfare 
of a Christian society, or to the efficacy of the sacra- 
ments. Cranmer, indeed, plainly avowed his convic- 
tion that, in the primitive times, there was no distinc- 
tion between bishops and priests, and that the laying 
on of hands was altogether unnecessary.'' (See p. 15, 
History of England, Butler's edition.) 

But while the Church of England at its organiza- 
tion as a new Church in 1533, did not consider episco- 
pacy necessary to a valid Church, after holding and 
practising that belief for nearly 130 years, in 1661, 
under the influence of High Churchmen, declare that 
no Church is a true Church, unless it holds and 
practises this doctrine of episcopacy, or three distinct 
orders in the Christian ministry. 


It must be remembered that the odium attaching 
to the High Church schismatics in the Church of Eng- 
land, should not be cast upon the Evangelical or Low 
Church party, many of whom look with sorrow and 
shame on the course pursued by their Romish brethren 
in the Episcopalian Church. 

Another testimony against the claim that episcopacy, 
as held by High Churchmen, was the form of govern- 
ment in the early Christian Church, is found in the 
history of Bedo. It would also lead to the conclusion 
that the Church government in the ancient British 
Church was Presbyterial. 

In describing the form of Church government in 
Iona at that early date, he says : — 

" That island has for its ruler an abbot, who is a 
priest, to whose direction all the province, and even 
the bishops, contrary to their usual custom, are sub- 
ject, according to the example of their first teacher who 
was not a bishop, but a priest and monk.' (See Bede's 
Ecc. His., book iii., chap., 4.) 

There was no " episcopacy " in this ancient British 
Church where a priest was superior in power to the 
bishops, and Bede says, " if icas contrary to the usual 
method," that is, contrary to that to which Bede was 
accustomed, viz., the episcopacy of Rome. Again in 
book iii., chap. 5, an account is given of the sending of 
Aidan to preach to the English people. In a company 
of elders it is decided to send Aidan, and Stapleton's 
translation, printed in 1622, reads : " This making 
him bishop they sent him forth to preach.' This was 
presbyterial ordination, ordained by elders, and sent 


on his mission by elders, and tltis in the ancient 
British Church ? 

And still I will give another instance found in 
Bede's Ecc. His. In book iii., chap. 28, we are told 
that Ceadda, (Chad) was sent to the province of the 
West Saxons to be ordained bishop, where Wini was 
bishop. " This Wini, assisted by two bishops of 
the British nation, consecrated Chad a bishop." Bede 
also adds, " r"or at that time there was no other bishop 
in all Britain canonically ordained besides Wini." 

How then had these two British bishops, who as- 
sisted Wini in consecrating Chad, been ordained, if not 
canonically according to Rome's canons ? The only 
answer is, the ancient British Church was presbyter ial 
in its form of government, and these bishops had been 
ordained by elders or presbyters in the same manner 
as Aidan. Further proof is found in book iv., 
chap. 2, where Bede tells of the course pursued by 
Archbishop Theodore after Pope Vitalian sent him to 
England : " Theodore, visiting all parts, ordained 
bishops in proper places, and with their assistance 
corrected such things as he found faulty. Among the 
rest, when he upbraided Bishop Chad that he had not 
been duly consecrated, he, with great humility an- 
swered, ' If you know I have not duly received epis- 
copal ordination, I willingly resign the office, for I 
never thought myself worthy of it ; but, though un- 
worthy, in obedience submitted to undertake it." He 
had been ordained a bishop, but not episcopally. 
How then ? Pkesp.yteria.lly is the only answer. 

The form of Church government in these ancient 
assemblages of ancient British Christians was presby- 


teria], that is, they had no third order called 
bishops, who were ecclesiastically superior to presby- 
ters, or, to put it in still another form, in the ancient 
British Church the scriptural equality of presbyters 
and bishops was retained, in opposition to the theory 
of three orders that Rome espoused. We submit that 
these facts, and many more which might be adduced, 
clearly establish the claim that the early British 
Church was preshyterial in its form of government, 
w T hich form prevailed in apostolic times. 

Many testimonies to prove that the early English 
Church rejected the High Church doctrine of episco- 
pacy as necessary to a valid Church of Christ might 
be added, but I will submit but a few. 

They will be found in that logical and exhaustive 
treatise on " Apostolic Succession," by the Rev. Thomas 
Powell. I will for the convenience of such as may 
desire to search the authorities quoted produce the 
references given by Mr. Powell. 

" Wicklitfe, who is called the morning star of the 
Reformation, says : ' I boldly assert one thing, viz., that 
in the Primitive Church, or in the time of St. Paul, two 
orders of the clergy were sufficient, that is, a priest and 
a deacon. In like manner, I affirm, that in the time of 
Paul, the presbyter and the bishop were names of the 
same office. This appears from the third chapter of 
the First Epistle to Timothy, and in the first chapter of 
the Epistle to Titus. And the same is testified by that 
profound theologian, Jerome.'' (See Wickliffe's " Tria- 
logus,' as quoted by Vaughan in his Life of Wicldiffe, 
vol. ii., p. 275, ed. 1831, London; see p. l:J!l Apostolic 
StccceMion, Powell.) 


" Bishop Burnet observes, " Another thing is, that 
both in this writing and in the ' Necessary Erudition 
of a Christian man,' bishops and priests are spoken 
of as one and the same office ; priest by these reform- 
ers everywhere means presbyter." 

The words " this writing," in the quotation will be 
understood by the following, " Bishop Burnet's re- 
marks on the nature and value of these documents 
shall now introduce them. He says : ' After some of 
the sheets of this history were wrought off, I met with 
manuscripts of great authority, out of which I have 
collected several particulars, that give a clear light to 
the proceedings in those times. I shall add them here. 
In this writing bishops and priests are spoken of as 
one and the same office. It had been the common 
style of that age to reckon bishops and priests as the 
same office." 

The document to which Burnet refers, appears to be 
the determinations of a convocation of archbishops, 
bishops and divines, for Cromwell (Thomas), the King's 
Vicar-General, signs first as presiding over the convo- 

I will not insert the whole document, which can be 
found in Powell, on Succession; but give that which 
decidedly settles the question of how episcopacy, or 
three orders, was held by the very men who actually 
formed the articles, the book of orders, and the plan 
of the government of the Church of England. This 
document they call, " A Declaration made of the Func- 
tions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests, 
an original," and in it they say, " The truth is, that in 
the New Testament there it no mention made of any 


degrees, or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons 
and ministers, and of priests or bishops." 

Then follow these signatures : Thomas (Ld.) Crom- 
well, the King's Vicar-General; T. Cranmer, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury; Edward, Archbishop of York; 
John, Bishop of London; and eleven other bishops, and 
sixteen other members of the Convocation, besides a 
number of names which Burnet said were illegible. 

With the absence of testimony of Scripture in favor 
of episcopacy as necessary to a valid Christian Church, 
and the teaching which it sets forth undoubtedly sanc- 
tioning the presbyterial form of government; with the 
weight of the history of the Christian Church of -the 
first century bearing the same testimony, add to these 
the strong, clear declarations of the early divines of the 
Church of England, and the concurrent witness of many 
of the best of the ministers of that Church to-day; and 
we may, without fear of erring, say positively that epis- 
copacy is not necessary to a true and valid Church of 
Christ, but that the form of Church government is not 
commanded or enjoined in the Word of God, but left 
to the godly judgment of succeeding ages, to follow 
the simple, reasonable and successful plan of the 
Church of the apostolic age; and the first century, 
which, most undoubtedly was governed by the senior 
members, called elders or presbyters, elected to that 
office by the votes of the congregation, or in other 
words, the presbyterial form of Church government. 
Hence it is evident that episcopacy is not prescribed 
in the Scriptures, and is not necessary to a true and 
valid Christian Church. 


The Wider Question — Is the High Church Doctrine 
of Apostolic Succession a Scriptural Truth ? — 
Was it Instituted on the Mount in Galilee ? 

HAVING exposed the fallacy of the assertion that 
episcopacy is the divinely instituted form of 
Church Government, we now turn to the twin error of 
Apostolic Succession. We have, we believe, proven 
that the claim of the High Church sect to possess a 
line of succession from the apostles through an ancient 
British Church, is an absurd and preposterous claim ; 
also that so many grave and perplexing irregularities 
are connected with the consecration of Parker, by 
whom some of them profess to have obtained their 
holy orders through the Roman succession, that all 
claims to such a line through him are equally worth- 
less, as that through the ancient British Church. But 
we now come to consider the wider question involved. 
Is there in any Church an unbroken line of successors 
of the apostles down to the present day, and are there 
any apostles now holding the same relation to, and 
possessed of the same power in Christ's Church as 
the original band appointed by our Lord ? 

An apology for discussing this proposition,, which is 
so generally conceded by Protestants to be an absurd- 
ity, is found in the persistency and boldness with 


which the High Church or Anglican party affirm it, 
and the still more astonishing boldness with which 
they affirm their ability to prove their claim by 
whcit they assert is the establishment by our Lord of 
an apostolic band, which was to be a perpetual insti- 
tution in the Church till the ciose of its mission ; and 
also by what they without faltering in their tone, 
boldly declare are the unimpeachable records of such an 
unbroken line of successors of the iirst apostles, down 
even to the present time, who are apostles of our Lord 
as fully and perfectly as the original twelve. If ques- 
tioned closely, they will gradually modify their claim, 
and admit that their succession is not as accurately 
illustrated by the word " chain,' as by the wider and 
more elastic term " net.'' The latter is evidently a 
safer term, and it is prudent to use it, for it suits their 
claim more accurately, as they clearly see that when 
one link in a chain is broken, the continuity of the 
chain is at an end ; but, a few or many of the meshes 
of a net may be severed, and yet, the trap may be suc- 
cessful in snaring such as do not discover the want of 
connection in the parts. When pressed, upon the 
assumption that the present bishops in the English 
Church are actually and really apostles, in the full sense 
in which the term is applied to the true scriptural apos- 
tles, they will also abate their pretensions, and admit 
that these modern apostles are not possessed of quite all 
the qualifications which were found in true apostles 
appointed and commissioned by our Lord. They will 
also confess, that they do not possess the powers which 
distinguished the apostles from the rest of the early 
missionaries who went out to preach the Gospel. In 


fact, when their claim is sifted closely, it narrows down 
to a professed authority, to control the Church by 
virtue of a pretended succession from the apostles, ir- 
respective of the possession of the grace and authority 
which the special baptism of the Holy Ghost conferred, 
which Christ made an imperative necessity. 

We will first notice their theory as to the founding of 
the apostolic order in perpetuity by our Lord. This will 
be shown to be the result of a misconception of the 
import of our Lord's action, and testimony in proof of 
this will be brought from the best Biblical scholars in 
the Christian Church, including some of the most 
prominent among the justly revered names which add 
lustre to the ministry of the English Church. Next, 
the testimony of standard historians, ecclesiastical and 
secular, will be submitted in proof of the contention 
that their claim to an apostolic succession is in direct 
opposition to the testimony of the centuries through 
which they assert it has come to us. 

To present the High Church theory that Christ 
founded a perpetual apostolate when on the mount 
He promised His disciples that His presence, in the 
person of the Holy Spirit, should be with His people 
to the end of the world, I will quote the words of 
the High Churchman who wrote " Methodism vn. The 
Church." On the 25th page we find this positive 
statement, which is also put forward with similar con- 
fidence by Bishop Randall of Colorado, in his " Why 
I am a Churchman,'' p. 12; by Bishop Doane, in his 
" Manual of Christian Doctrine,'' third series p. 119, 
and by many others of that same sect. The assertion 


is as follows : " The apostles without successors ! 
Where is the Master's promise ? " Lo, I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world." This was a 
promise made to the apostles and to them only. Ex- 
amine it carefully, " u u to the end of the world." Look 
at it again — " always, — all the days of the world unto 
its very end. Not even for a day shall your line be 
broken. When Christ said He would be with them to 
the end of the world, He was to be with them and 
their successors. We conclude, therefore, that the 
apostolic office is still in existence in this year of grace 
1885. Call this " succession dogma " a " human inven- 
tion.'' No, sir. God is the author of it. God is the 
preserver of it. It cannot fail anymore than Christ's 
own promise can fail." (Methodism vs. The Church, 
p. 24.) 

A few words will make clear the significance of 
that meeting between our Lord and His disciples as 
related in Matthew xxviii. 16 to 20. It is to be 
noticed that in stating who were with Christ, Matthew 
says, verse 16, " Then the eleven disciples went away 
into Galilee," etc. He does not speak of them as 
apostles possessing a power withheld from the ordinary 
ministry of the Church, but as those who represented 
the ordinary ministry by which the world was to be 
evangelized. This appears from the nature of the 
commission He gave them, and the promise of His 
continued presence which accompanied it. The com- 
mission was, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe 


all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Now, 
what authority is here given ? We reply, authority 
to " teach and baptize." Is authority to teach and 
baptize the distinguishing and peculiar characteristic 
of the apostolic office? Not at all. By whom has all 
the authority contained in this commission been exer- 
cised in the Christian Church during every year of its 
existence and down to the present day ? But one 
answer can be given to this decisive question, and that 
is, that in every age of the Christian Church the 
power to teach and baptize has, without dispute, been 
exercised by presbyters. It is without any contro- 
versy clear, that on the mount Christ gave to His 
eleven disciples just that authority which has by 
universal consent ever belonged to, and been exercised 
by, presbyters or elders in His Church. And further, 
it is equally clear that it was to them in the exercise 
of this authority, and in the performance of this duty, 
that He gave the promise of His blessed presence to 
the end of the world. 

Now, when the work performed by presbyters in- 
cludes all the authority that this commission conveyed 
to the disciples, where are we to find in it a special 
authority to another order in the ministry above 
presbyters or elders, and who receive in these iden- 
tical words, their superior authority ? It is simply a 
contradiction to assert it. And further, it is worthy 
of notice that Christ's presence and power are neces- 
sary as a proof of a valid Christian ministry, and 
when that presence is wanting, such ministry is but a 
mockery, and ceases to be a part of Christ's true 


Church. This in itself is fatal to the claim of apos- 
tolic succession, as history proves that many through 
whom the apostolic succession professedly descended, 
if it exists now, were men of the vilest characters and 
of the most profane and obscene lives. Will they 
assert there could be a valid succession in a Christian 
ministry without the presence of Christ, when He pro- 
mised that His presence would be with them unto the 
end of the world, hence a ministry where His presence 
was not, would not be a true ministry ; or would they 
on the other hand, so daringly profane the Blessed 
Lord, as to say that He was present with, and ac- 
knowledged as His ministers, these men in their pre- 
tended apostolic line, of whom history reveals such 
wickedness in their daily lives as would to-day con- 
sign one guilty of such conduct, not only infamy in 
public estimation, but actually to the felon's cell ! 
Yet this latter fearful alternative, the advocates of 
this dogma of apostolic succession, are compelled to 
adopt, and to-day actually defend it. Why, we may 
ask? The reply is that only through moral monstro- 
sities have they even a prdence of a claJm to a line of 
apostolic succession. This will appear in the evidence 
from some of their own bishops, which is to follow. 

Believing that the claim that Christ founded a per- 
manent apostolic order possessed of authority superior 
to that of presbyters is based upon a misconception 
of the nature of the commission given them, I 
will add a quotation from but one commentator in 
support of the opposite view. 

In Lange, the great German commentator, we find. 


" They came forward here as the representatives of the 
entire band of disciples, and not as the select apostolic 
college of the twelve, which makes its first <tppcarance 
after the selection of Matthias.'' 

As the representatives of the whole company of the 
disciples, they received the commission for the entire 
band which they represented, and the duties which 
were to be performed by the true Christian ministry 
in all succeeding ages, and to them thus representing 
the ministry of the Christian Church, was given the 
precious assurance that in the faithful performance of 
this work of teaching and baptizing, they would be 
cheered through all the future ages with a sense of 
the presence of the Blessed Master, but there is not 
the most remote reference to the communication 
to them and their successors, at this time of any 
greater authority than has in every age of the 
Church been universally accorded to presbyters. Yet 
such power the High Church party claim to pertain 
to those in their apostolic line of succession, and 
that Christ conferred it in this commission given His 
disciples on the mount. It is evident that if they had 
Scriptural authority for their dogma, they would not 
be forced to so manifestly distort the Word of God. 


The Testimony of History, and of some of the Earlier 
and Latter Divines in the Church of England, 
regarding the Doctrines of Apostolic Succession, 

IN order that a clear view of this question may be 
presented, I will quote from recognized High 
Church authorities the claims the}- put forth for the 
doctrine of apostolic succession ; and then submit 
proofs of the falsity of their assertions. 

Dr. Hook says, " This continued descent is evident, 
to every one w r ho chooses to investigate it. There is 
not a bishop, priest, or deacon, who cannot, if he please, 
trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter or. St. 
Paul." (See Apostolic Succession, Snodgrass, p. 214.) 
The Oxford divines declare, "as to the fact of the 
apostolic succession, that is, that our present bishops 
are the heirs and representatives of the apostles by 
successive transmission of their prerogative of being 
so, this is too notorious to require proof. Every link 
in the chain is known from St. Peter to our present 
metropolitans. (Ibid. 214.) 

Another statement is so unique in its character, that 
it certainly is worthy a place in this succession of ab- 
surd statements. It is from a Dictionary of the 


Church, published in New York, in 1859, and is as 
follows : " It is now more easily to be proved that the 
Archbishop of Canterbury was canonically ordained, 
than that any person now living is the son of him who 
is called his father; and that the same might have 
been said of any archbishop or bishop, that ever sat in 
that, or any other episcopal see, during the time of his 
being bishop. (Ibid., see pp. 214 and 215.) 

Bishop Doane's " Slanual of Doctrine,'' on page 134, 
has this question and answer — 

Q. Is there any danger of this line of succession 
(apostolic) ever having been broken ? 

A. No, we are surer of it than we are that our 
Bibles of to-day are the true successors of the 
first Bible. 

With the utmost assurance High Churchmen declare 
they have an actual register of this unbroken succes- 
sion from the present back to apostolic times, appar- 
ently oblivious to the fact that the statement is not 
only absolutely false, but is easily proven to be with- 
out even the first probability of truth. 

I will now prove by quotations which cannot be 
ignored, nor contradicted, the utter foolishness of these 
claims. In attempting to present the testimony of 
history, and the statements of many of the most 
celebrated divines of the early, and present Church of 
England, to disprove this theory which rests solely on 
audacious assertions, one must act the part of a hur- 
ried traveller passing quickly through a rich harvest 
field, snatching here and there a head of grain, rather 
than the reaper whose duty it is to garner the abun- 


dant harvest. The testimony is so voluminous that 
only a very small part can find a place here. We will 
present only selections from the abundant material at 
hand, but enough to settle this question in the minds 
of all sincere enquirers, and completely overturn and 
disprove the arrogant and untrue claims above quoted 
for this theory. 

As Eusebius is the fountain of ecclesiastical history, 
I will notice what he says in his first chapter, to 
show what his effort was. Eusebius says : ' As it is 
my purpose to record the succession of the holy apostles 
together with the times since our Saviour down to the 
present," etc. The first effort was to trace the " succes- 
sion of the apostles.'' Now, when did he undertake 
it ? Probably in the first half of the fourth cent ury. 
What does he say about the advantages he possessed ? 
for by them we must weigh the evidence he gives 
of an unbroken succession. He says, chapter 1st : 
" But, here, acknowledging that it is beyond my power 
to present the work perfect and unexceptionoMe, 
I freely confess I will crave indulgence, especially 
since, as the first of those that have entered upon this 
subject, we are attempting a kind of trackless and un- 
beaten path" No "succession or "line" visible to 
Eusebius here. He also says : " Though we are totally 
unable to find even the bare vestit/es of those who may 
have travelled the way before us, unless perhaps what 
is only presented in the slight intimations which some 
in different ways have transmitted to us in certain 
partial narrative of the times in which they lived," 
etc. And again, " In the execution of this work we 


shall be happy to rescue from oblivion the successions, 
if not all, at least of the most noted apostles of our 
Lord in those churches which even at this day are 
accounted the most eminent," etc. 

Now in these passages this historian, who starts 
with the avowed purpose of tracing apostolic succes- 
sion, honestly confesses the uncertainty of his record, 
as if to warn men against trusting it as an absolutely 
correct history, because of the uncertainty and sparse- 
ness of the sources of information. 

Eusebius also says : " Who they were that, imitating 
these apostles (meaning Peter and Paul), were by them 
thought worthy to govern the churches which they 
planted, it is no easy thing to tell, excepting such as 
may be collected from St. Paul's own words." 

Let us see what Stillingfleet says on this passage 
from Eusebius : " If the successors of the apostles, by 
the confession of Eusebius, are not certainly to be dis- 
covered, then what becomes of that unquestionable 
line of succession of the bishops of several churches, 
and the large diagrams made of the apostolic churches, 
with every one's name set down i-n his order, as if the 
writer had been Clarenciux to the apostles themselves? 
Are all the outcries of apostolical tradition, of personal 
succession, of unquestionable records, resolved at last 
into the Scripture itself by Him from whom all these 
long pedigrees are fetched ? Then let succession know 
its place, and learn to veil bonnet to the Scriptures; and 
withal let men take heed of over-reaching themselves, 
when they would bring down so large a catalogue 
of single bishops, from the first and purest times of the. 


Church, for it will be hard for others to believe them 
when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them.'' 

Yet notwithstanding the absolute impossibility of 
obtaining reliable evidence, they construct their list of 
bishops back to the apostles, and ask the unwary to 
accept it as a reliable testimony. I will give the note 
which Dr. Moshiem puts at the head of this list. It is 
this : " The succession of the first bishops of Rome is. a 
matter full of intricacy and obscurity." In other 
words, it is a most unreliable conjecture. 

I shall next proceed to show that the doctrine of 
apostolic succession has been rejected, and held in 
contempt by many of the best men in the Church of 
England, from the beginning of the Church in the six- 
teenth century down to the present. Listen to the 
strong testimony of divines in the early Church of 
England on this romance of apostolic succession, in 
which any student of ecclesiastical history should be 
ashamed to confess a belief. 

I will quote from the work, A Conference of the Re- 
formers .and Divines of the Early English Church on 
the Doctrine of the Oxford Tractarians. By Henry 
Fish, M.A. 

Page 5, Bishop Hooper, " Seeing that the Church is 
bound unto this infallible truth, the only Word of God, 
it is a false and usurped authority that men attribute 
unto the clergy, and bind the Word of God and Christ's 
Church to the succession of bishops.'' 

Bishop Jewell, page 8 : " But wherefore telleth us 
this long succession ? Have these men their own suc- 
cession in so safe a record ? Who then was bishop of 
Rome next by succession unto Peter ? Who was the 


second ? Who was the third ? Who was the fourth ? 
It is clear that of the first four bishops of Rome, they 
cannot certainly tell us who in order succeeded the 
other. And thus talking so much of succession, they 
are not well able to blaze their own succession. 
But St. Paul saith, " Faith cometh not by succession, 
but by hearing, and hearing cometh not by legacy or 
inheritance from bishop to bishop, but by the Word of 
God. By succession, Christ saith, Desolation 

shall sit in the Holy Place, and anti-Christ press into 
the room of Christ." 

Bishop Burnet, page IS: " The ransacking of records 
about a succession of orders, though it adds much to 
the lustre and beaut}' of the Church, yet it is not a 
thing incumbent upon everybody to look much into, 
nor indeed possible for any to be satisfied about ; FOR 


lost, so that how ordinations were made in the primi- 
tive Church we cannot certainly know'' 

Dr. John White, page 13: "The succession required 
to make a Church apostolic must be defined by the 
doctrine, and not by the place or persons ; that is to 
say, must be reputed the apostles successors, which be- 
lieve the apostles' doctrine, although they have not this 
outward succession of pastors. And Nazianzen said, 
' Succession in godliness is properly to be accounted 
succession. For he that holds the same doctrine is 
also partaker of the same succession.' 

" It is no disadvantage to the Protestant Church if 
holding the apostles' doctrine they want external suc- 
cession of place and person ; because the apostolicness 


of the Church is not defined by it, but wheresoever the 
true faith contained in the Scriptures is professed and 
embraced there is the whole and full nature of an 
apostolic Church the succession of doctrine, is 

the true succession, and is not tied to that which is in 
place and persons^' 

John Bradford, M.A., Martyr Prebend of St. Paul's: 
" I would gladly have the Papists show me one place 
of succession mentioned in the Scriptures. You shall 
not find in all Scripture this essential part of succes- 
sion of bishops." 

Dr. Fulke, page 19 : " That the Hoty Ghost is given 
by bishops to priests in their ordering is more boldly 
affirmed, than it ever can be proved ; for Christ only 
hath authority to give the Holy Ghost ; and therefore 
to declare it cometh from Him alone among men, He 
breathed upon His apostles, which though the bishops 
do until their lungs ache, yet they cannot furnish their 
parties by them ordered, with gifts meet for their 
calling as Christ did His apostles." 

Bishop Alley, p. 9 : " The continual succession of 
bishops can prove nothing of itself. Those Churches 
which, although they bring forth none of the apostles, 
or apostolics for their author, as when succeeded long 
after, and are daily instituted, jet nevertheless, con- 
descending and agreeing in one faith they are to be 
counted apostolic for the affinity of doctrine. If they 
say the Church remaineth among bishops, they are 
very much deceived and ignorant in the Scriptures, 
and it is manifestly declared in the sacred Bible that 
the Church consisteth not in the company of bishops.' 


Bishop Cooper, p. 11: "If they (the Romanists) 
will continue to ask where the succession is ? we 
answer : That wheresoever since the coming of Christ, 
there hath been many persons upon the face of the 
earth that hath confessed this sincere truth and doc- 
trine (which Protestants opposed to Papists hold), we 
say that they are our predecessors, and we are their 
successors, and with them members of the true Church. 
It is not always necessary that the Church of God 
should be notable, or nourish on the outward face of the 
world by continual succession of bishops.'' 

I will here add an extract from " A Treatise on the 
Popes' Supremacy," by Isaac Barrow, D.D., who was a 
leading divine in the Church of England during the 
first century of its existence, he having been born in 
A.D. 1030. 

The importance and clearness of his testimony form 
a sumcent reason for the length of the extract. 

" The apostolic office, as such, was personal and tem- 
porary, and therefore according to its nature and 
design, not successive or communicable to others in 
perpetual descendence from them. It was, as such, in 
all respects extraordinary, conferred in a special man- 
ner, designed for special purposes, discharged by 
special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was 
needful for the propagation of Christianity and found- 
ing of Churches. 

"To that office it was requisite that the person should 
have an immediate designation and commission from 
God ; such as St. Paul so often doth insist upon for 
asserting his title to this office. Paul, an apostle not 


from men, or by men. Not by men, saith St. Chrysos- 
tom, this is a property of the apostle. 

"It was requisite that an apostle should be able to 
attest concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, 
either immediately, as the twelve, or by evident conse- 
quence, as St. Paul ; ' thus St. Peter implied, at the 
choice of Matthias : Wherefore of those men which 
have companied with us — must one be ordained to be 
a witness with us of the resurrection ; and, am I not 
(saith St. Paul,) an apostle ? Have I not seen the 
Lord ? according to that of Ananias, the God of 
our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know 
His will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear 
the voice of His mouth ; for thou shalt bear witness 
unto all men of what thou has seen and heard.' 

" It was needful also that an apostle should be en- 
dowed with miraculous gifts and graces, enabling him 
both to assure his authority and to execute his office ; 
wherefore St. Paul calleth these the marks of an apos- 
tle, the which were wrought bj- him among the Corin- 
thians in all patience (or perseveringly) in signs and 
wonders and mighty deeds.'' 

And again, Dr. Barrow adds, " Now such an office, 
consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and 
miraculous powers, which were requisite for the foun- 
dation of the Church, and the diffusion of Christianity 
against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages 
which it then needs must encounter, was not designed 
to continue by derivation ; for it containeth in it 
divers things, which apparently were not communi- 
cated, and which no man without gross imposture and 
hypocrisy could challenge to himself." 

methodism and anglicanism. 199 

" Neither did the apostles pretend to commu- 
nicate it, they did indeed appoint standing pastors 
and teachers in each Church ; they did assume fellow- 
laborers or assistants in the work of preaching and 
governance ; but they did not constitute apostles, 

GIFTS; for 'who knoweth not (saith St. Austin) that 
principate of apostleship to be preferred before any 
episcopacy ' ? And the bishops, (saith Bellarmine) 
have no part of the true apostolic authority.' (See 
works of Dr. Isaac Barrow, vol. iii., pp. 53 and 54.) 

Bishop Hoadly said, " As far as we can judge of this, 
God's providence never yet, in fact, kept up a regular 
uninterrupted succession of rightful bishops. It hath 
not pleased God in His providence to keep any proof of 
the least probability, or moral possibility- of a regular 
uninterrupted succession ; but there is a great appear- 
ance, and humanly speaking, a certainty of the con- 
trary, that succession hath often been interrupted." 
(Apostolic Succession, Snodgrass, p. 216.) 

Stillingfleet says : " By the loss of the records of 
the British Churches, we cannot draw down the suc- 
cession of the bishops, from the apostolic times ; that 
of the bishops of London, by Jocelyn of Furnes, not 
being worth mentioning." (See Apostolic Succession, 
Snodgrass, p. 210.) 

I will now give the words of the "judicious Hooker," 
in which he admits, though reluctantly, that the claim 
to an unbroken line of succession from the apostles to 
his time was a mere fiction, and contradictory to facts 
recorded by history. His words are : 


" There may be sometimes very just and sufficient 
reason to allow ordination made without a bishop.' 

And he also declares that this " hath oftentimes " 
taken place, for he proceeds : " Where the Church 
must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor 
can have possibly a bishop to ordain ; in case of such 
necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given 
oftentimes and may give place. And therefore we are 
not simply, "without exception, to urge a lineal descent 
of power from the apostles by continued succession of 
bishops in every effectual ordination." (See Ecclesias- 
tical Polity, book viii., chap. 14, p. 403, ed. of A.D. 

Hooker here explicitly yields the whole question, 
and admits that "effectual ordinations" may be made 
without bishops, thus admitting the validity of pres- 
byterial ordinations ; and further declares that that 
which he declares is " the ordinary institution of God, 
hath oftentimes given place ; " in other words, he ad- 
mits that it has often been actually done, and that 
therefore apostolic succession is not a necessary insti- 
tution in a valid church. 

Lord Macaulay says : " That during this period (the 
century that followed Nero's persecution) the overseers 
of all the little Christian societies scattered through 
the Roman Empire held their spiritual authority by 
virtue of holy orders derived from apostles cannot be 
proved by contemporary testimony, or by any testi- 
mony luhich can be regarded as decisive." "We 
read of bishops of ten years old, of bishops of five 
years old, of many popes who were mere boys, and 


who rivalled the dissoluteness of Caligula.' " We are 
at a loss to conceive how any clergyman can feel con- 
fident that his orders have come down correctly. 
Whether he be really a successor of the apostles, 
depends on an immense number of contingencies as 
these whether in the seventh century an 

impostor who had never received consecration, might 
not have passed himself off as a bishop on a rude tribe 
of Scots ? Whether a lad of twelve did really, by a 
ceremony huddled over when he was too drunk to 
know what he was about, convey the episcopal char- 
acter to a lad of ten.'' (Macaulay's Essays, p. 393, 
Appleton Edition.) 

Archbishop Whately, says, " There is not a minister 
in all Christendom, who is able to trace up with any 
approach to certainty, his spiritual pedigree." (King- 
dom of Christ, p. 5S.) 

He also says, " Successors in the apostolic office, the 
apostles have none; as witnesses of the resurrection, 
as dispensers of miraculous gifts, as inspired oracles 
of Divine revelation, they have no successors." (See 
p. 74.) 

Two things are prominently set forth here, First, 
the plain denial of apostolic succession. Second, the 
conditions which are necessary to constitute an apostle, 
viz.: ' A witness of the resurrection, a dispenser of 
miraculous gifts, an inspired oracle of Divine revela- 
tion." These being given in the Scripture as necessary 
to constitute an apostle, it is not strange that while 
the Anglicans claim their bishops are apostles, yet that 
they dare not profane that name by attaching it to the 


notorious characters who make up their so-called line 
of apostolic succession. 

Wesley, though strongly prejudiced in its favor from 
his early training, said, " The doctrine of apostolic suc- 
cession I know to be a fable which no man ever did or 
can prove." 

Dr. Southey said, "Undoubtedly it is not possible 
to prove apostolic succession. (Life of Wesley, vol. ii., 
p. 2ol.) 

Dr. Sfcoughton is equally clear and decided with 
Dean Alford, regarding the impossibility of the con- 
tinuance of the apostolic office. (See Primitive Ecclesia, 
p. 27.) 

" The apostles were persons in their official relation 
so completely sui generis (of a peculiar kind) that 
they could not leave behind them perfectly corres- 
ponding successors.'' 

So the Rev. J. Radford Thompson, M.A., in his essay, 
entitled "The Idea of the Church Historically De- 
veloped" in Ecclesia, p. G2, is equally strong and 
decided : — 

" The first officers were the supernaturally inspired 
apostles who were endowed with signs corresponding 
with their authority, and who, whatever credulous 
superstition may aver, had no successors in office!' 

Hear Rev. Phillips Brooks, D.D., a leading Episco- 
palian divine : " That every minister standing 
in the pulpit of the Episcopal Church gets his right to 
preach from the fact that he has been ordained by a 
bishop who stands in lineal succession to the apostles, 
who were licensed to preach by Jesus Christ Himself. 


There is no line in our Prayer Book, there is not a 
word in any of our formularies which declares any 
such theory. It has always been something that has 
been held by individuals, a theory that has recom- 
mended itself to certain classes and kinds of minds, 


Rev. Dyson Hague, an episcopal clergyman in Lec- 
tures on Laudism: — 

" No man who holds the doctrine of apostolic 

succession can in any sense be termed loyal to the 
Church," etc. 

The present Bishop of Hereford (184-1), in speaking 
of apostolic succession said, "To spread abroad this 
notion would be to make ourselves the derision of the 
world." (See Snodgrass, Apos. Sue, pp. 214-217.) And 
this declaration of His Lordship the Bishop of Here- 
ford has been fully verified. They are the derision of 
the world. 

These testimonies, coupled with the TOTAL SILENCE 
of Scripture about apostolic succession, fatally dis- 
credit it and brand it as a human invention. 

In the July number of Princeton Review for 1885 
there is an article on the " Zurich Letters,' in which 
the doctrine of apostolic succession is held up as 
a theory worthy only of contempt. Read what the 
learned editor wrote : " The constitution of the apos- 
tolic Church was peculiar and inimitable, and was 
never designed to be permanent and universal. The 
apostolic office itself was, from its conditions and pur- 


pose, temporary and persona], incapable of transmis- 
sion or succession. It was essential to the apostolic 
commission that it should be derived directly and 
personally from the Lord Jesus ; and as the apostles 
were the constituted witnesses of the fact of His 
resurrection — the point around which the whole body 
of Christian evidences, truths and doctrines revolved, 
the corner-stone of historical Christianity — it was 
essential to the character of an apostle, that he should 
have seen Christ, personally, after His resurrection. 
Now let us try those ' who say they are apostles and 
are not,' by these tests ; let us examine the credentials 
of these boasted, and boasting ' successors of the apos- 
tles ' — by what all acknowledge to have been the 
signs of an apostle. We might present those signs 
as summed up by Paul and fulfilled in him. Are 
they apostles ? Have they seen Christ ? Can they 
work miracles ? Can they bear personal witness to 
the great fact of the resurrection ? Are they inspired 
to declare the unrevealed will of God ? Xo ! not one 
thins; that is alleged in Scripture as peculiarly 
a sign of an apostle can these successors of the 
apostles do ! the failure is not partial, or equi- 
vocal, in one point, on one test, but unmitigated, 
unredeemed, total, throughout, universal, and 
ignominious. Successors of the apostles, that have 
nothing particularly in common with the apostles ! 
As well might any ordinary English constable claim to 
be the successor of Alfred the Great and Queen Eliza- 
beth. We fancy we hear the ancient inspired and in- 
fallible apostles saying to these their bastard sons, 


'Peter I know, and Paul I know, but who are 

And yet, as unsupported as this priestly theory is, 
as contradictory to historical records, and as absurdly 
ridiculous as it is, not only in the eyes of the many 
millions in the non-episcopal churches, but also in the 
estimation of hundreds of thousands in the Church of 
England, including many of the most scholarly and 
godly of her clergy, yet High Churchmen without any 
appearance of shame, in this enlightened age push 
forward this effete theory, and declare it is true. And 
it must be exposed, or by loud boasting some may be 
deluded into believing it. 

Now fancy for a moment, that instead of the utter 
defeat and annihilation which years ago overtook this 
dogma, that it stands fully proven that the ministers 
of the episcopal body are in an unbroken succession of 
men ordained in direct line from the apostles. What 
is it worth ? Nothing, and less than nothing. First, 
nothing. Why ? Because it is anti-scriptural, inas- 
much as the only apostolic succession God owns is a 
succession in apostolic graces, and this is not included 
in the doctrines they hold. It is then worth nothing. 
But secondly, it is worse than nothing, for if their 
own theory be true they must trace their parentage 
through a line of unusually wicked and immoral men. 
I will prove this by quoting the words of two of the 
Divines in the Church of England, Bishop Abbott, 
who says of this pretended line of apostles, Amongst 
all the generations of men since the world was, it can- 
not be showed that ever there was such a succession of 


rake-hells, and hell-hounds, such monsters and incar- 
nate devils as have been among them ; heretics, apos- 
tates, dogs, most unworthy of all other to have the 
sun shine upon them or the earth to bear them." {The 
Defence of the Beformed Catholics, by Robert Abbott, 
D.D., part ii., c. vii., p. 996. From Conference of 
Divines, p. 1 2.) 

Dr. Favour, of Halifax, England, was not favorably 
impressed with the value of this succession, though he 
bore Holy Orders in the Church of England. He says : 
" often wicked men, sometimes children both 
in age and knowledge ; schismatics, heretics, idolaters, 
incestuous, blasphemers, conjurers, sorcerers, monsters, 
and incarnate devils, have usurped that seat whereunto 
they would tie succession. 1 ' (Antiquitie Triumphing 
over Nov&ltie, by John Favour, Doctour of the Laws, 
sometime Fellow of the New Collegian, Oxford, pp. 
79-82 ; Conference of Divines, p. 22.) 

These form a terrible indictment of the spiritual 
ancestry of the men who boast so proudly of apostolic 
succession, but it is from one of their own bishops, and 
one of their own clergymen, and fully proves that this 
anti-scriptural superstition is, as I have said, worse 
than nothing, for who would not desire to have such a 
terrible family pedigree blotted out, and stand as an 
alien to that commonwealth of ecclesiastical profli- 


A Balancing of the Claims of this Dogma of 
Apostolic Succession. 

The Scriptures record the fact that Christ appointed 
a band of men to guide, and preside over the infant 
Church, and that He gave them special power for the 
performance of special duties. 

High Churchmen say the bishops of the Church of 
England are successors of these apostles and possessed 
of all their authority. 

Let us note the differences between the Church of 
England bishops and the apostles appointed by our 

First. They have not the same name. The earliest 
bishops who knew best their relation to the apostolic 
office, refused to take the name of apostle, because 
they knew they were not apostles, and the Episcopal 
Church has not assumed the name. Why ? It would 
be scouted as ridiculous. The contrast would be too 

Secondly. Look at their proofs, powers and duties, 
and examine if they correspond to the tests of an 
apostle as laid down by Paul. 

They have not seen Christ. They have not the 
power to work miracles. They cannot bear a personal 
witness to Christ's resurrection, and they dare not pro- 
fane the truth and say they are inspired to declare 
the unrevealed will of God. In fact there is not one 
solitary test of an apostl-e w T hich they can show, or, 
that they possess. What an absurd pretension ! 

Here is the deliberate testimony of two profound 


scholars on this point ; the Rev. Dean Alford and the 
late Rev. Dr. Hodge, to which I will also add the 
tersely expressed judgment of John Wesley in con- 

Dean Alford says, " The apostolic office ceased with 
apostolic times, and by its very nature admitted not of 
continuance.' And the Rev. Dr. Hodge, a most profound 
scholar, says, " The apostolic office itself, was, from its 
conditions and purpose, temporary and personal, in- 
capable of transmission, or succession.' (See Princeton 
Review for 1855, p. 386.) 

All these strong testimonies agree with the matured 
and profound declaration of Wesley, that " the doc- 
trine of apostolic succession is a fable which no man 
ever did, or can prove.'' 

We, therefore, now leave this question, after having 
submitted abundant proof that the doctrine of apos- 
tolic succession is a mere fancy of disordered imagina- 
tions, or worse, that it cannot be proven by the testi- 
mony of Scripture, and is absolutely contradicted by 

The following conclusions have been reached, viz.. 
that neither Christ nor the apostles either commanded 
or instituted the episcopal form of Church government, 
nor established a line of successors to the apostles such 
as is claimed by the advocates of the dogma of apos- 
tolic succession ; and it follows that to prove the right 
to a place in the Church of Christ other tests and 
proofs must be produced. To such we shall next call 


What are the tests and proofs of a true Gospel Ministry? 
First. Conformity in essentials to the teachings 
and practices of the apostles; and Second, Our 
Saviour s test , "by their fruits ye shall know them!' 
How the Episcopalian branch compares with the 
Methodist when thus tested? 

THESE are questions of more than speculative in- 
terest to an earnest Christian, and the Head of 
the Church has made it possible for each to satisfy his 
conscience regarding them. 

We will first notice that inasmuch as episcopacy is 
not enjoined in Scripture as necessary to the existence 
of a true Church of Christ, that having, or not havin", 
the episcopal form of government, is no proof, either 
for, or against, the validity of a claim to be considered 
a true branch of Christ's Church. Christ did not 
make it a test or proof. And secondly, as a perpetual 
apostolic order, superior to presbyters, was not estab- 
lished in the Church, as the Scriptures clearly show ; 
and as no such order succeeded the original band of 
apostles, as history with equal clearness testifies, we 
are satisfied that such an order does not form a neces- 
sary part of a Christian Church. So it is no proof 


of validity to claim to possess it, nor against validity 
to reject it, as unnecessary. 

We will now note two qualifications which are 
necessary to constitute a true Church of Christ ; and 
which, when found in anybody of Christians, do suffi- 
ciently establish the validity of its claim to a place in 
the great commonwealth of Christian Churches. 

These are the positive tests of a Gospel ministry, 
the first of which is a natural inference ; the second, 
a positive declaration of an essential truth from the 
lips of the Great Master, by which test all agencies 
will be judged : (1) The first is conformity in essen- 
tials to the teachings and 'practices of the apostolic 
Church. (2) The second our Saviour's test, ' By their 
fruits ye shall know them'' 

1st. Conformity in essentials to the apostolic Church. 
Having shown in the foregoing pages the anti-scrip- 
tural character of High Church teaching, as exhibited 
in their dogmas of Baptismal Regeneration, the Real 
Presence, Auricular Confession, Priestly Absolution, 
etc., we hold that the want of conformity to apostolic 
teaching is fuliy established. We will therefore pro- 
ceed to show that there is also a fatal antagonism be- 
tween the practices of the Church of England, and those 
of the apostolic Church. 

When tested by this axiom, the claim of the High 
Church party for the Episcopal Body utterly breaks 
down, inasmuch as in the true apostolic Church the 
head of the organization on earth u-as not a layman, 
but one set apart solely for the ministry of the Word, 
as is not the case in the Church of England. This is 


a flagrant want of conformity to an essential condition 
in the apostolic Church, and in this very important 
matter the Church of England is directly opposed, and 
in contrariety to, the apostolic Church. 

Again, in the apostolic Church, the power of ap- 
pointing ministers to places of trust and importance 
was in the hands of men who were themselves engaged 
in the ministry of the Word ; but in the Church of 
England this power is largely in the hands of politi- 
cians, and they exercise it often to the great scandal of 
good men. In fact a man might be a lineal descendant 
of Judas Iscariot, and as unrepentant as his infamous 
ancestor, and, for all there is in the law, or economy of 
the Church of England to prevent it, still attain a posi- 
tion in which he would appoint men in the ministry of 
the Church of England to places of great importance. 
Surely this is a fatal variance from apostolic usages. 

Again, in the apostolic Church such a thing as the 
sale of "Church livings," was unknown ; and it would 
not have been tolerated had' it been possible, but as 
the apostle said to Simon Magus when he sought to 
buy a gift which would place him among them who 
were preaching the Gospel, so in a true apostolic 
Church to-day, such traffickers would be repulsed with 
the stern rebuke, " Thy money perish with thee.'' Yet 
the Church of England papers in England, and even 
the secular press, are used as advertising mediums to 
secure the highest possible price for the privilege of 
exercising the "holy office for the cure of souls" in 
certain parishes. 

The sale of commissions in the army has been 


abolished as an evil that could no longer be tolerated, 
and long before this traffic was abolished in the army, 
the public sentiment would have been outraged had a 
Prime Minister offered for sale positions in his Govern- 
ment, and he would thereby have dug his own political 
grave ; yet strange to say this abuse stands uncorrected 
in the Church of England to the present day. Simon 
Magus, in a slightly altered form, still presents his 
money for a place in the apostolic band, and the Eng- 
lish Church of to-day accepts his detiled gold and bar- 
ters church preferment as a marketable commodity. 
It is a scandal to a professedly Christian Church, and 
essentially antagonistic to apostolic teaching and usage, 
and goes far to discredit its claims to any place in the 
Church universal. The huge proportions of this great 
evil are not generally known among Christian people, 
and it will be well to expose the true character of this 
organization which loftily assumes to be the trueChurch 
of Christ,and hurls her anathemas at others, denouncing 
them schismatics, and denying their right to call them- 
selves members of the household of faith. The episco- 
palian body in England has about thirteen thousand 
livings or advowsons within her jurisdiction. For the 
present purpose it will be sufficient to notice that they 
are divided into three classes, " distinguished into 
presentative, collative, and donative. In a presenta- 
tion advowson the patron presents a clergyman to the 
bishop with the petition that he be instituted into the 
vacant living. The bishop is bound to induct if he 
find the clergyman canonically qualified, and a refusal 
on his part is subject to an appeal to an ecclesiastical 


court, either by the patron or by the presentee. In a 
coll'ijive advowson the bishop is himself the patron, 
either in his own right, or in the rights of the proper 
patron, which has lapsed to him through not being ex- 
ercised within the statutory period of six months after 
the vacancy has occurred. In a donative advowson, 
the sovereign, or any subject by special license from 
the sovereign, confers a benefice by a simple letter of 
gift, without any reference to the bishop and without 
any presentation and institution.' (See Encyclopaedia 
Britannica, Art. A dvowson.) 

These upward of thirteen thousand livings are 
divided about as follows : Under the patronage of the 
crown, one thousand one hundred and forty-four ; 
bishops, two thousand three hundred and twenty-four ; 
deans and chapters, nine hundred and thirty-eight ; the 
universities, seven hundred and seventy : the parochial 
clergy, nine hundred and thirty-one; and private per- 
sons, seven thousand. That is, the power to appoint 
ministers to more than one half of the pulpits of the 
Episcopal Church in England is held by private persons ; 
and more than one half of the congregations in that 
Church must accept the minister who can make out to 
pay the patron the largest price for the privilege of 
fanning their tithes. Fancy such an arrangement in 
the original apostolic Church ! But if there were any 
safeguards as to the character of the patron ; or if the 
bishop held a discretionary power, the evil would not 
be of so great magnitude. However, unfortunately for 
the cause of religion and morality, it is not so. The 
bishop is compelled to institute any clergyman who is 


canonically qualified, however unfit he may be for the 
place, either through intemperance, or any other lapse 
in morals, so long as his conduct has not been so 
grossly immoral as to have led to his suspension or 
expulsion from their so-called holy orders. Then again, 
there are the donative advowsons, to which the lay 
patron can appoint his nominee 'without any reference 
ivhatever to tfie bishop. The ecclesiastical power is not 
a factor in such appointments, for the bishop is not 
even consulted. Further, these "livings" in the 
Church of England, being "property,'' " may be sold or 
mortgaged, or seized by the creditors of a bankrupt 
estate." In other words, in this pretended apostolic 
Church the " livings,'' where a clergyman may exercise 
the holy office for the cure of souls, are mortgaged, 
bought, sold and bartered, just as though the holy 
office was no more sacred than a farm, a business-stand, 
or a grog-shop. Judas Iscariot was the only apostle 
who would have sold livings, and he had the decency 
to hang himself after he sold his Master. 

I wish it borne in mind that this evil does not exist 
because of a breach of a law of the Church of England, 
or the violation of the principles by which a Church is 
governed, by persons connected therewith. Transgres- 
sions occur in every community, and oven happened 
in the little band of twelve apostles; but this wrong does 
not occur as a breach of the law of the Church, but is 
the custom, and has been the peactice in this Church 
for more than two hundred years, and is in harmony 
with, and authorized and sanctioned by, the law of 
the Church of England. 


There are some whose whole nature and conscience re- 
volt against the simony they are forced to commit, and 
they are striving to get rid of the shameful practice; 
but they are ONLY INDIVIDUALS, and do not repre- 
sent the Church, which, in its AUTHORiTATi ve and 

TIONS this crime. The greatness of this evil has led 
some ministers of the Church of England to endeavor 
to expose its magnitude, and try to awaken the Church 
to its duty. Some on the other hand do not seem able 
to comprehend the gravity of a crime which is a shame 
and scandal to a Christian Church. One High Church 
writer says: For a person already in the priesthood 
to buy a place where he may exercise his ministry is 
no more simony than it is burglary.'' 

In order to test this statement, and determine whe- 
ther the buying of a place to exercise his ministry, by 
one already in hoi}' orders is simony, I will submit 
the oath taken by every clergyman before being pre- 
sented to a living. 

the oath. 

"I, N.N., do swear that I have made no simonical 
payment, contract or promise, directly or indirectly, by 
myself or by any other, to my knowledge or with my 
consent, to any person or persons whatsoever, for or 
concerning the procuring and obtaining of this ecclesi- 
astical dignity, place, preferment, office or living, [re- 
spectively and particularly naming the same where- 
unto he is to be admitted, instituted, collated, installed 
or confirmed,] nor will at any time hereafter perform 


or satisfy any such kind of payment, contract or pro- 
mise, made by any other person without my knowledge 
or consent. So help me God through Jesus Christ." 
(See Simony: A Visitation Sermon. By Rev. W. D. 
Willis, A.M., Prebendary of Wells, and Rector of 

Here tho clergyman distinctly swears he has not, 
and will not directly or indirectly pay anything for a 
"place'' yet, a High Church author says in the year 
18S6, " For a person already in the priesthood to buy a 
place where he may exercise his ministry is no more 
simony than it is burglary." (See Methodism vs. The 
Church, p. 58.) Read the above oath in which the 
minister swears against paying for a place, and you 
must be convinced that this High Churchman did not 
know what constituted simony when he wrote his 
foolish and erroneous statement. Perhaps he meant 
to say, " no more simony than perjury ? " for on the 
fifth page of the same book this clergyman (Willis) 
quotes in proof of bis charges against the Church, this 
sentence from Jones' Essay on theChurch,cha,p. iii.,§ and 
foot-note appended. " Perjury, which is now in a very 
growing state, may in time come to market with as 
much boldness as her sister simony hath done for 
many years past." Why is perjury in a growing 
state ? I will now proceed to answer this terrible 
question. Read what is on page 56 of the " Visitation 
Sermon,'' where we find this advertisement, and you 
will see the cause of the increase of perjury, of which 
this clergyman speaks : " To be sold by private con- 
tract, the advowson of, or the next presentation to, 

Methodism and angUcanISM. 217 

one of the most important and valuable livings in the 
kingdom, which has been held by the present incum- 
bent above thirty years. For particulars apply to 
Messrs. Birt & Burt, Southampton Office, Fitzroy 
Square ; or Stephen Gerard, Esq., 13 Suffolk Street, 
Pall Mall East." 

The above advertisement was for a private sale., but 
I will now give the opening words of two more advet- 
tisements which appeared in the public prints of aucticr 
sales of church livings without shame or concealment.. 

"The advowson of Kattlesden, about eight miles from 
Bury St. Edmund's, the incumbent, seventy-two years 
of age. Mr. W. W. Simpson has received directions 
to sell by auction, at the auction mart, in the course of 
the ensuing month (unless an acceptable offer by 
private contract be in the meantime made), the advow- 
son and next presentation to the Rectory of Rattlesden, 
situate in a pleasant part of the county of Suffolk," etc. 
Then follows a glowing description of the advantages 
this living possesses. 

And another auction sale of a "living for the exercise 
of the holy office for the cure of souls,'' begins thus: 
'' Norfolk — Advowson for sale — To be sold by auction 
by Mr. Peyton, at Garraway's Coffee House, "Change 
Alley, Cornhill, on Tuesday, the 4th day of October 
next, at 12 o'clock (under such conditions of sale a3 
shall then be declared), the advowson of the Rectory 
of Southery, comprising the great and small tithes of 
the parish," etc. Yet with these sales by public auction 
of these " places in which to exercise his office for 
which he has to pay sums of money in proportion to 


the tithes they pay the owner, and with the fact 
publicly known that money is paid for them, the un- 
fortunate minister has to swear as follows : " I do swear 
that I have made no simonical payment, contract or 
promise, directly or indirectly by myself or by any 
other, to my knowledge, or with my consent to any 
person or persons whatsoever, for, or concerning the 
procuring and obtaining of this ecclesiastical dignity, 
place, preferment, office, or living, nor will at any time 
hereafter perform or satisfy any SUCH kind of pay- 
ment, contract, or promise made by any other without 
my knowledge or consent. So help me God, through 
Jesus Christ." 

It is now clear why " perjury, which is now in a very 
growing state, may in time come to market with as 
much boldness as her sister simony hath done for many 
years past/' Anil on the 20th page the author quotes 
the words of Lord Coke as follows : " Simony is the 
more odious, as it is ever accompanied with perjury, 
for the presentee is sworn to commit no simony." 
Hero Lord Coke says, that in every such case of simony 
being committed, the purchasing clergyman is also 
guilty of perjury. Surely here is an open, shameless, 
and fatal violation of the principles by which the 
apostolic Church was governed, and which Christ en- 
joined. Yet this is publicly practised by the Church 
of England. It sadly fails to conform to the essential 
principles upon which the apostolic Church was based. 

I will now submit some further quotations from this 
Visitation Sermon on Simony. The preacher enum- 
erates several things which he says are commonly 


acknowledged as true, and among them the following, 
" That property involving the appointments 
of parishes, and the opportunity of ministering to 
thousands of the souls of men, is, to a considerable ex- 
tent, bought AND sold. Fearful denunciations are 
made by the Church against all trafficking in " spir- 
itual and ecclesiastical functions and promotions," and 
a most awful oath is imposed upon and taken by every 
clerical holder of the Church's patrimony. ABOUT 


Page 22. " And if we pursue the history I have 
commenced, and bring it down to the present hour, we 
find that we can scarcely look into one of the daily 
journals or periodical publications likely to meet the 
eye of a clergyman in which the announcement of 
benefices, allowances, presentations and avoidances for 
sale (Mr. Willis evidently intended that the words 
" do not " should precede the word " exceed," as the 
quotation from page 24 clearly proves) " exceed any 
former precedent. Now these announcements teach 
us, I think, two things : first, they show that benefices 
are actually sold ; and also they develop, at least 
they seem to do so, the principal objects for which they 
are so purchased." 

"What are, then, the chief inducements to pur- 
chasers proposed in these public announcements ? 
Why, the amount of income, and the facility of its 
payment — the pleasant situation — the comfortable 
house — the convenient premises — the desirable neigh- 
borhood — the small population and the infrequent 
duty ! " 


Page 24. " The question then is, how comes it to 
pass that such practices exist, and why have they IN- 
CREASED and seem to be increasing ? " 

Page 25. "In the first place, then, I believe that 
much ignorance prevails as to the sin of simony itself 
in its various shapes. I believe that as a subject it has 
been very little considered by the clergy, and that con- 
sequently when circumstances arise in which a man is 
likely to come into contact with it, he hurriedly en- 
quires what others have done in like cases, and finding 
that the temporal law has been so interpreted and can 
be so evaded as not necessarily to bring buyers and 
sellers of ecclesiastical promotion into legal difficulties, 
he shut his eyes to any further consideration, and con- 
ceives he may safely declare before God that he has 
made no simoniiccd contract." This is a terrible 
statement to come from a clergyman of the Church of 
England, in view of the fact that every clergyman 
takes the oath given above. Bear in mind that Lord 
Coke says: " Simony is the more odious as it is ever 
accompanied with perjury, for the presentee is sworn 
to commit no simony/' 

Read again on page 57, the following advertisement 
in proof that this Church which boasts so loudly and 
impudently of her apostolic character is protecting, 
conniving at, and actually sanctioning "the detestable 
sin of simony.'' 

No. 26. "A married clergyman, A.M., of Cambridge, 
of great experience, and comfortable independence, with 
a powerful voice, and high testimonials, wishes to 
obtain a curacy, or to purchase a curacy. Address, 


prepaid, Rev. A.M., at Mr. Waughes, 5, Great James 
Street, London." This proves the charge of simony 
against this Church which insolently cries out : " We 
are an Apostolic Church and Methodism only a sect. 3 ' 

I will give but one more of these disgraceful adver- 
tisements from the same source, on page 58. This 
choice specimen reads thus : " To the Clergy, — An 
incumbent would resign directly, with patron's con- 
sent, to one not under forty-six, a beautiful living, a 
perfect gem, one of the prettiest things in England, 
with excellent new freestone front house in good 
repair, facing a park at the skirts of a small market 
town, with every necessary of life cheap ; productive 
garden, lawn, pleasure grounds, wall fruit, six acres of 
pasture adjoining, coachhouse, stabling for six horses, 
out-houses, no tithes or trouble as to income, duty easy, 
spot healthy, roads and society good ; the whole worth, 
including surrogacy for granting marriage licenses, 
above £280 a year. Terms : The incoming incumbent 
to pay down £1,900 to indemnify present incumbent's 
outlay on the spot, and for his furnLare fixtures, old 
wines worth £180, gas share producing five per cent., 
live stock, including three cows, horse, etc., pony car- 
riage, piano by Stoddart, cost 65 guineas, hand organ 
by Flight, cost 3C guineas, emblements, (sic) haystack, 
garden implements, cast iron roller, iron gate, hurdles 
and all effects but books, plate, linen, and a few 
pictures. A second living, one mile off, 'worth £48 
per year without trouble in collecting, duty single and 
intermediate, no weekly, may be had also at option, 
included in the same sum. There is a large family 


pew in the chancel, handsomely fitted up and with a 
stove. Both livings are capable of, and likely to re- 
ceive increase. Address post-paid to the Rev. LL.D., 
post office Shepton, Somerset. No agent wanting a 
fee from the outgoing party will be noticed." 

This notice was published in the London Times. 
No comment is necessary. 

The Rev. Dr. Willis then adds : " The advertise- 
ments given are by no means the most daring that 
might have been produced, always excepting No. 2G, 
which, were it not for the purpose of showing my 
brethren the depths of unblushing depravity into 
which secular-minded clergymen may fall, I should not 
have suffered to pollute my pages.' - He proceeds : 

"A process not uncommon is for a young man to 
purchase a Presentation, or Advowson ; and to obtain 
a title to Holy Orders, is nominated curate by the in- 
cumbent whose living he has bought. The incumbent 
becomes non-resident ; the curate has then ' sole care 
of the parish, gets a lease of the tithes and settles 
himself down for life, with but little anxiety as to how 
long the nominal incumbent may live, except, it may 
be, as regards the improvement of the glebe house, 
though I have known the so-called curate erect a new 

" In such a case as this, when the purchaser ob- 
tains Holy Orders by a title from the vendor of 
the living, i should think ax example of simony 
is exhibited as full and complete in all its parts 
as could be supplied." 

Here is proof from one of their own clergy that 


"what they themselves call "the detestable sin of 
simony," is a fearfully common practice in this organi- 
zation which professes to be a true Church of Christ. 

Such a purchase is sinful and shameless simony, and 
the Church of England is constantly guilty of that 
great sin. 

Now, regarding the practical operation of this method 
of allowing lay patrons to sell livings where " one al- 
ready in the priesthood may buy a place where he maj- 
exercise his ministry.'' Let us glance at the character 
of the persons who may hold this solemn and sacred 
trust. How great care a patron should exercise we 
all know ; how much he actually does may be inferred 
from the following clippings, which took the rounds 
of our secular press. 

The first is as follows : " Lord Lonsdale is 39 years 
old. He is one of the greatest rakes in England, a 
drunkard and a fighter, yet he controls forty-two 
Church livings.' Comment is unnecessary. 

The second is as follows : " London is laughing over 
Lord Lonsdale's hurried flight from New York from 
the fair Violet. Some say he is coming over to felici- 
tate the new rowdy Marquis of Aylesbury on his 
accession to the gift of so many livings in the Estab- 
lished Church.' 

And this in a Church which calls itself "an apostolic 
church " and insolently denies the scriptural character 
of genuine Christian churches, while itself guilty of 
such scandalous and anti-scriptural practices. If it be 
tolerated as a part of the great brotherhood of churches, 
it should modestly take the lowest place, and sit with 


bowed head and blushing face because of its sin and 

The third occurs in connection with an article on the 
late divorce case between Lord and Lady Colin Camp- 
bell, which caused one to blush for our poor humanity. 
It is as follows : " No one it is said figured to greater 
disadvantage, or showed more of soiled reputation, than 
did the Duke of Marlborough. The worst part of the 
story is that this chief of the Churchills receives a 
large pension from the State treasury, a drain upon 
the people's resources, enabling him to continue an 
expensive as well as licentious career. Not the least 
part of the scandal in the case of this dissolute duke 
is that he is the patron of no fewer than thirteen liv- 
ings of the Church of England." 

Just fancy the extreme solicitude which would be 
manifested by one of these noblemen of scandalous 
lives to find a clergyman who would faithfully preach 
the gospel of purity, and watch with parental care 
over the morals of his young parishioners ! What con- 
suming grief they would feel if they found the clergy- 
man to whom they sold the living where he might 
exercise his ministry, cared more for the fleece, than 
for the spiritual well-being of his flock ! But who has 
any right to interfere, he has paid his money for 
the place, and it belongs to him, for it is like other 
property, and may be sold, or mortgaged by the patron. 
And all this in the name of our holy Christianity ! 
Now I take no notice of the fact that these scandalous 
characters, Lord Lonsdale, the Marquis of Aylesbury 
and the Duke of Marlborough, stand in some sort of 


connection with the Church of England, for Erastian- 
ism is practically adopted by that Church ; but I hold 
that when by the law and authority of the Church 
such publicly immoral and licentious characters have, 
and exercise, the power to appoint ministers to " the 
holy office for the cure of souls,' that such Church is 
guilty of an anti-scriptural practice, and should con- 
fess her sin and forsake it, before she calls herself a 
successor of the holy apostolic band, too holy for 
Judas Iscariot after his fall, and too pure to admit 
Simon Magus when he offered money. Well may 
Cardinal Newman tauntingly say of the English 
Church, of which he was once an honored minister : 
" We regard it neither with anger, nor with aversion, 
nor with contempt, any more than with respect or in- 
terest. It is but one aspect of the State.'' While these 
iniquities are practised with the sanction of the Church, 
the burning language of Cardinal Newman cannot be 

When Lord Lonsdale, or the Marquis of Aylesbury, 
or any other profligate, who has for sale " forty-two," 
or more or less, "church livings" where the "holy 
office of the cure of souls " is " exercised," sells for 
money one of them to " one already in the priesthood, 
who BUYS it that he may have a place to exercise his 
ministry," the " rake, drunkard and tighter " who sells 
the living FOR money, the one already in the priest- 
hood who buys it, and pays money for it, and the 
simony before the just and holy God. We turn to the 


authoritative declarations of the Church of England 
about this sin, and we read, " It is a detestable sin and 
execrable in the sight of God," and yet it is openly 
practised within her pale, and connived at by her 
authorities. The humiliating spectacle is before us 
of a professedly Christian Church, with one hand 
holding up her law which denounces Simon Magus 
and his awful sin, while she scarcely attempts to con- 
ceal the other hand, which is stretched out to clutch 
Simon's gold. And this painful spectacle has been ex- 
hibited for many years by this Church, which has the 
effrontery to cry out, " The people of God, the people 
of God are we." 

Well might Cardinal Newman, who held the so-called 
" holy orders " for several years in the Church of 
England, but left on seeing the breaks in the pretended 
chain of apostolic succession, and many other weak- 
nesses in the system, say : 

" We see in the English Church no body politic 

of any kind, we see nothing more nor less than an estab- 
lishment, a department of government, or a function 
or operation of the state, without a substance, a mere 
collection of officials depending on, and living in, the 
supreme civil power." (See Difficulties of Anglicans, 
p. 6, vol. i.) 

With their scandalous traffic in "livings for the 
cure of souls " in our minds, we recognize the accurate 
and logical description of their semi-ecclesiastical, semi- 
political association, drawn by the hand of a master 
who had sounded their empty pretensions to their 
shallow bottom, and then abandoned them. 


Cardinal Newman has painted a painfully accurate 
picture of the proud, but soiled, face of this pretentious 

With this painful exhibition of a want of conformity 
to the principles of the apostolic Church before us, we 
are forced to say that, in this essential principle, the 
episcopal body is not only not in harmony with the 
early apostolic Church, but is guilty of a flagrant and 
shameless violation of Christian principle that finds 
no parallel in any branch of the Church of Christ. 
Conformity in essentials to the practices of the apos- 
tolic Church, which is undeniably requisite in a true 
Church of Christ, is thus strikingly and unquestion- 
ably wanting in the Church of England ; while we con- 
fidently affirm no such fatal contradiction between the 
apostolic practices and the economy of the Methodist 
Church can be found. 

When tested by this first condition necessary to a 
true branch of Christ's Church, the episcopalian body 
is weighed in the balance and found essentially lighter 
than that portion of the Church universal, composed of 
the people "called Methodists ;" and if judged by man's 
method, would be counted unworthy of a place in the 
sacred brotherhood, because of its shameless contradic- 
tion of the apostolic practices. 


The Second Test of a True Church of Christ. " By 
Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them'' A Com- 
parison of the Claims Episcopal, with the Meth- 
odist Church. 

THE claim of the Episcopalian Church to the right 
to be called the Church of Christ, to the entire 
exclusion of the great Methodist Church, will now be 
examined in the light of their records as instruments 
for accomplishing the Master's will on earth, or by the 
second test, " By their fruits ye shall know them; 

Let us glance at the history of these churches since 
their establishment, the one under Henry VIII., about 
A.D. 1531, and the other two hundred years later under 
John Wesley, in 1739. In 1739, Methodism had its 
birth, and Episcopacy had England. Now, in 1886 
Methodism has outstripped Episcopalianism in num- 
bers as well as in spiritual and moral power. 

The justly celebrated statistician, the Rev. Dr. Dor- 
chester, stated in a paper read at Baltimore, in 1884, 
that " Methodism is clearly entitled to rank as the 
largest branch of the Christian Church in the Anglo- 
Saxon and English speaking communities of the world." 

And this has not been accomplished by adopting a 


lower moral, or religious standard as a condition of 
membership, but on the contrary, the moral and reli- 
gious character demanded, is very much higher than 
that of the Episcopalian Church. 

Methodism has also in its period of church-life, 
which is briefer by two hundred years than the life 
of the Church of England, already outstripped her 
older competitor in the number of ministers of 
the Gospel. Dr. Dorchester in his " Problem of 
Religious Progress," p. 571, gives the total number 
of the clergy of the episcopal body throughout the 
world, and it is 31,200, with 195 bishops and arch- 
bishops. Then on page 574, he gives the number of 
the ministers in the Methodist Church throughout the 
world, which is 33,522 ; thus showing that the Meth- 
odist Church has 2,266 more ministers proclaiming the 
Gospel than the older Church has in her ranks. Were 
we to add the 79,643 local preachers of the Methodist 
Church, the disparity would be simply overwhelming, 
as it would show that, after allowing for lay readers 
in the Episcopal Church, Methodism employs at least 
80,000 more agents in preaching the Gospel than the 
Church of England has in that work. 

It would show, that for every one agent employed 
in preaching the Gospel by the Church of England 
throughout the world, the Methodist Church employs 
three and a fraction of nearly one-half. The lay 
readers in the Episcopal Church have not been taken 
into the account, and to equal them, we will drop the 
fraction, and then it leaves the Methodist Church 
Gospel agency just three times as numerous as that of 


the Church of England. As a result, the moral and 
religious power of Methodism has been felt through- 
out the whole world, and it has quickened every 
branch of the Church to greater exertion. 

Methodism exacts a far higher religious standard 
for membership in the Christian Church, has more 
numerous agencies at work for evangelizing the 
heathen, and exercises a far more powerful moral influ- 
ence over those to whom she ministers the Word of Life. 
This superior moral power of Methodism is not strange, 
since within the last ten years, the election cry which 
led the larger part of the clergy of England to the 
polls, was " The Church and The Beer Shop." Both 
were thought to be in danger, and they felt and acted 
on the motto, " United we stand, divided we fall." 
And " united they stand " to-day, notwithstanding 
the earnest efforts of good and godly men among them. 
" By their fruits ye shall know them." 

I beg to submit a brief statement from the statistics 
furnished by the Government, as it relates to this 
question in Ontario. In the first place, I will show 
how the Methodist Church has outstripped the Episco- 
palian Church in numbers during the forty years last 
preceding the census of 1881. In 1842 the Episco- 
palians in Ontario, numbered 107,791, and in the same 
year the Methodists only 82,933 ; that is, the Episco- 
palian Church had 24,858 more adherents than the 
Methodist Church had at that time. Fort}' years pass 
by, and the majority is transferred to the other side, 
for in 1881 the Methodist Church in Ontario numbers 


591,503, and the Episcopalian the same year, 367,528, 
being a net majority in favor of the Methodist Church 
of 223,975, or by adding the 24,858 majority in favor 
of the Episcopalian Church in 1842, to the majority 
in favor of the Methodist Church in 1881, it gives an 
actual increase in the Methodist Church over the Epis- 
copalian in these forty years, of no less than 248,833 
in Ontario alone. " By their fruits ye shall know 

I advance this in no spirit of boasting, but to show 
that God's blessing has been far more richly bestowed 
upon the efforts of the Methodist Church, than upon 
the labor of the Episcopalian. 

It is not alone in Ontario that Methodism has borne 
so much more fruit, but a comparison of the census re- 
turns for the provinces comprising the Dominion, 
prove that from the Atlantic to the Pacific, when 
tested by our Lord's test, the Methodist Church proves 
more fully than the Episcopalian, her right to valid 
membership in Christ's Church universal. 

The census returns for 1861 for Ontario, Quebec, 
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward 
Island, were, Episcopalians, 472,351 ; Methodists, 448,- 
886; or in 1861, the Episcopalians had a majority of 
23,465. But in 1881, in the whole Dominion the figures 
were, Methodists, 742,981 ; Episcopalians, 577,41 1, at 
which date the Methodists had a majority of 165.570, 
or a gain of Methodists over Episcopalians in twenty 
years of 189,035 in the whole Dominion. 

I will secondly submit a statement from the crimi- 
nal statistics of our Government officials, to show that 


while the Methodist Church has exceeded the Episco- 
palian Church in numbers, it has at the same time 
exercised a far more powerful moral influence over 
those whom God has committed as a sacred trust to 
her guardianship. I will present the results reached 
by an examination of the reports furnished by Govern- 
ment officials of the prisons and gaols of the Province 
of Ontario, which reveal facts of a character most 
damaging to the claims of the Episcopal Church. 

In reading the statistics, it must be borne in mind 
that while the adherents of the Methodist Church in- 
side our gaols are in some years only one-half as 
numerous as the Episcopalians, outside the gaols in 
the Province of Ontario the numbers are reversed, and 
the Methodists have 223,975 more people under their 
influence, and were it not for the superior moral and 
religious influence of Methodism, her representatives 
in our prisons and gaols would naturally exceed in 
number those of the Episcopalians. I will put it in 
the form of a question. Why is it that, while the 
Episcopalian Church in Ontario, has not quite two- 
thirds of the number that the Methodist Church has 
under her pastoral care out of her much smaller num- 
ber, she furnishes in some cases twice as many, and in 
other cases three times as many, criminals for our 
gaols and prisons ? " By their fruits ye shall know 

I will take the statistics of the Central Prison of 
Ontario, as found in the report of the Inspector of 
Prisons for 1885. Total commitments, Church of 
England, 2,782 ; Methodist Church, 907. Why, with 


only two-thirds the number of the Methodist Church, 
has the Church of England sent more than three times 
as many criminals to the Central Prison ? Then the 
common gaols. The last five official reports contain a 
puzzle of the same kind for High Churchmen, Total 
commitments, as per report of 1881-1885: Episcopa- 
lians, 16,658 ; Methodists, 6,365. Why, with 223,975 
less people than the Methodist Church has in Ontario, 
has the Episcopalian Church in Ontario supplied 
10,393 more criminals for our gaols in these years ? 
" By their fruits ye shall know them." 

The returns of criminals for 1887, just at hand, 
add their testimony to that already given, for with 
scarcely two-thirds as many people under her pastoral 
care in Ontario, the Episcopalian Church has furnished 
3,675 criminals for our jails; while the Methodisi 
Church, with her much greater number, has supplied 
only 1,366, which is but slightly more than one-third 
as many as the Episcopal Church has furnished, thus 
showing there is no increase in their moral and reli- 
gious power. 

Comment upon these statistics is unnecessary, as they 
reveal beyond the possibility of successful contradic- 
tion that as an agency for carrying out the commission 
Christ gave to His disciples on the mount, " Go ye 
into all the world and preach the Gospel to every crea- 
ture,'' the Methodist Church far excels in efficiency the 
Episcopalian Church. 

These statistics, which cannot be successfully chal- 
lenged, prove that the Methodist Church is incompar- 
ably ahead of her sister Church in the practical car- 


lying out of the very work Christ committed to His 
Church, viz., deterring men from sin, and securing the 
salvation of human souls, and that the Great Head of 
the Church has given His seal of approbation to her 
work in a manner not excelled since apostolic times. 

When subjected to the direct test given by our Lord, 
the boasting, self-styled, Apostolic Church falls far be- 
hind the Methodist Church, and her claim to be the 
universal Church of Christ is only a vain and arrogant 
assumption. Her own claim to a place in the great 
sisterhood of Christian churches, is seriously weakened 
upon examination, not being supported by conformity 
to apostolic principles, nor does she as fully prove her 
right when tested by our Lord's own formula, " By 
their fruits ye shall know them, as is proven for the 
Methodist Church by her history. 

I will express the hope that after even this brief 
exposure of the claims advanced by High Church- 
men, and the exhibition of the absurdity of arro- 
gating to themselves ecclesiastical superiority, so 
offensively, and I must say, so ignorantly, by that 
faction in the Church, they will learn to look at 
their claims with an intelligent and honest desire 
to know the truth. If this be done they will cease to 
expose themselves to the contempt of the larger, and 
more thoroughly effective Gospel churches in Canada, 
viz., the Methodist and Presbyterian, by their unchar- 
itable conduct. Their inefficiency would be still more 
apparent had space permitted me to include in my 
table of criminal statistics the proof that the numbers 
of criminals of the Church of England, as compared 


with the number of those of the Presbyterian Church, 
would reveal substantially the same crushing testi- 
mony against the self-styled Apostolic Church, as an 
evangelical agency, as is shown by this comparison 
with the Methodist Church. But the Episcopalians 
are well aware that in the matter of criminals they 
leave all the other Protestant Churches in the shade, 
and do not fail to profit by their unenviable distinc- 
tion when there is a distribution of the loaves and 
fishes. Years ago, when a chaplain was wanted for the 
Kingston Penitentiary, the right of a certain minister 
of the Church of England was urged upon the ground 
that " there were more members of his Church in the 
Penitentiary than of any other Protestant Church," 
and as his contention proved true, it was recognized, and 
the chaplaincy given him. To-day the same position 
is held by another clergyman of that Church, and this 
claim of greater numbers still holds good. 

Nor has the light of advancing years caused men to 
blush at such a claim, for in 1881, when a chaplain was 
wanted for the prison at Penetanguishene, although 
there was a minister of the Presbyterian Church, and 
another of the Methodist Church residing at the place, 
and none of the English Church, one of the latter 
Church was imported on the plea that " there were 
more members of the Church of England in the prison 
than of all the other Protestant Churches together.'' 
This plea was not perfectly accurate, for I am informed 
that there were only seventy-eight English Church 
criminals there, while all the other Protestant Churches 
combined had eighty-six. 


And here a pertinent question occurs. We have 
large majorities of criminals from the Church of Eng- 
land recurring year after year with the fatal and 
unerring precision of a repeating decimal. Now, 
does it not follow that these men who, with the 
smaller number of adherents, are powerless to pre- 
vent such large numbers of them going to the prisons, 
are just in the same proportion the most inadequate 
to minister the Gospel to them in prison ? It must 
be so, unless the strict discipline of the prison has a 
beneficial effect upon both " the priest and people.'' 

The conclusion to which these undeniable facts irre- 
sistibly forces us, is apparent without being formu- 

The Anglican Church is in the matters of the actual 
form of government, and of allocating her ministers 
to their parishes, fatally at variance with apostolic 
customs and teachings, which cannot be said of Metho- 
dism ; and when subjected to the test laid down by 
our Lord, it is still far behind the Methodist Church 
in efficiency, notwithstanding her greater age, and the 
possession of immense wealth. 

Tested then by these two essentials, the credentials 
of the Methodist Church are incomparably superior to 
those of the Episcopalian Church. The superior de- 
gree of conformity to apostolic principles which dis- 
tinguishes the Methodist Church, will be still more 
apparent when we examine more fully her method of 
selecting and appointing men to the work of the pas- 
toral office. Enough has appeared in connection with 
the partial examination we have made of the episco- 


palian body to warrant us in saying that when tried 
by these two tests, of conformity in essentials to the 
practices of the Apostolic Church, and by the fruits 
of her ministry ; in the latter she is sadly behind the 
Methodist Church, and in the former it may be truth- 
fully said of her, she is " weighed in the balance and 
found wanting." 


Is the Jlethodist Church a Valid Scriptural Cliurch ? 
A True. Church defined. The harmony between 
the procedure in the Methodist Church and the 
Holy Scriptures. 

HAYING shown the wide deviations from apostolic 
principles which prevail in the Anglican com- 
munion, and how sadly that Church fails to fulfil her 
mission as compared with the other branches of 
Christ's Church, against which the High Church party 
so bitterly fling the charge of schism, we will now 
consider the question, Is the Methodist Church a 
valid, or Scriptural Church ? We will first determine 
what constitutes a true Christian Church ; and then, 
secondly, examine how nearly the Methodist Church 
fills these conditions. 

Inasmuch as the Scriptures do not enjoin the epis- 
copal form of government as necessary to a true 
Church, and as Christ did not institute any permanent 
apostolic order, neither dogma forms a necessary part 
of the polity of a Christian Church. 

We will, therefore, proceed with the positive features 
which pertain to a true Church of Christ. 

The following words define a true Church. " A 


congregation of believers in which the pure Gospel is 
preached, the sacraments duly administered, and the 
discipline of the Christian fellowship maintained in its 
purity.*' (See Pope's Theology, vol. iii., p. 270.) 

I will use this definition of a true Christian Church, 
as it includes all that is found in the 19th Article of 
the Church of England, and also more than is required 
by that article, which is as follows : " The visible 
Church of Christ is a faithful congregation of men, in 
which the pure Word of God is preached, and the 
sacraments duly administered according to Christ's 
ordinance in all those things that of necessity are 
requisite to the same.'' The agreement between these 
tests is so nearly perfect that no discussion about the 
wording is necessary. Let us try the Methodist 
Church by this test, which I believe all will admit to 
be fully in harmony with Scripture. 

1st. A "congregation." None will challenge the 
statement that the Methodist Church has this qualifi- 
cation, when her numbers in all probability are greater 
than those of any other Protestant Communion speak- 
ing the English language. 

2nd. "A congregation of believers.'' There will 
not be any controversy here, as none will deny that 
the Methodist people comprise a " congregation of be- 

3rd. " A congregation of believers in which the 
pure Gospel is preached." I anticipate no challenge 
on this point, as I believe it will be admitted by all 
interested in this question, inasmuch as the doctrines 
taught by John "Wesley constitute the theology of the 


Methodist Church, and the portions of his works 
which he selected as doctrinal standards for the 
Church, are declared by the Church to be her stan- 

4th. We will also assume that it will not be denied, 
that in the Methodist Church the " discipline of the 
Christian fellowship is maintained in its purity.'' 

We come now to the last, and, so far as this part of 
the controversy is concerned, the only really import- 
ant question for discussion, are the sacraments duly 
administered in the Methodist Church ? 

As I proceed to demonstrate from Scripture and 
history combined, that the sacraments are duly admin- 
istered in the Methodist Church, the attentive reader 
will find, I trust, satisfactory answers to all the strong 
assertions against the scriptural validity of Methodist 
ordinations, and full and irrefragible proof that the 
theory and practice of the Methodist Church are in 
harmony with the records of the methods of the 
primitive Church as found in the Scriptures. 

I shall examine the mode of selecting offices for the 

1st. Such as preach the Word of Life, and administer 
the sacraments, called in the Scripture by both names, 
bishop, and presbyter, interchangeably. 

2nd. Such as were set apart as helpers of those who 
ministered in holy things, called deacons, whose duty 
it is " to assist the presbyters in their several offices 
generally ; and secondly, as their assistants to take 
charge of the sick and poor.'' 

" To every service in the Christian fellowship there 
is a calling." 


I need not call special attention to the fact that 
Christ called His disciples, and that His call alone was 
the source of their authority, and that afterwards He 
" appointed " some to go forth to do His work, for it 
is said, " afterwards our Lord appointed other seventy 
also.'' His call to the work, and His command to go, 
constituted the whole reason why they assumed the 

A Divine call is, in the Old and New Testaments 
demanded, as absolutely necessary on the one hand ; 
and on the other hand, the Divine call is the only 
authority absolutely necessary both in the Old and 
New Testaments. 

Concerning this call in the new economy it was said 
by the apostle, " No man taketh this honor to himself 
but he that is called of God as was Aaron." Now 
there were two distinct phases of this appointment of 
Aaron, by God, to his special work. One was the 
Divine call made known to Aaron, and the other was 
the Divine attestation to man, that Aaron was called 
of God to this work. The first, viz., the Divine call 
was the only and real source of the authority of which 
Aaron was possessed. The proofs that God gave to 
man, that He had called Aaron to this work, did not 
add to his authority to assume it. While it was thus 
God's attestation to man, that He had called Aaron to 
this work, it did not impart grace to Aaron, that 
came only with the Divine call. 

Paul places the matter very clearly before us and 
shows not only the necessity of a Divine call, but its 
true relation to the authority to assume the office to 


which he was called. In Galatians i. 1 : " Paul an 
apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus 
Christ, and God the Father).'' To Paul this Divine 
call was the solid, and only foundation on which he 
rested his authority. Without it, he would not have 
dared to assume the apostolate; with it, he was so fully 
satisfied, that ever after in his ministry he referred to 
it as the actual, real, and only source of his authority. 

This is sufficient to prove, 1st. That the Divine call 
is absolutely necessary as authority to assume the 
pastoral office. 2nd. That it is all that is absolutely 
necessary for authority to assume this office. 

But we find in Acts xiii. 1-3, that the teachers and 
prophets in the Church at Antioch were instructed by 
the Holy Ghost to separate Barnabas and Saul, for 
this work to which they had received the Divine call 
by the Holy Spirit, and that " when they had fasted 
and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent 
them away." Here is the Church's call and acknow- 
ledgment that these persons had given satisfactory 
proof that they had received the Divine call of the 
Holy Spirit ; in other words, after the Church was 
satisfied that these persons were called of God, they, 
in an open and public manner testified to it, by " sep- 
arating them for this work,'' and appointing or ordain- 
ing them to it. This service was not, nor did they 
suppose it was, the real source of their authority ; it 
was simply the Church's testimony to their Divine 
call, on which Paul said he relied alone for authority. 

In the Scriptures, then, we learn that the Divine call 
to the work of the Christian ministry was first given, 


and was absolutely necessary, and the only absolutely 
necessary requirement. 

2nd. We find that it was the custom after one pro- 
fessing to be called of God, had given to the Church 
satisfactory proof of the genuineness of his call, for 
the congregation of believers to publicly attest their 
belief that he was really called of God, for the work 
of ministering the Word of Life. 

We now ask, what proofs did the apostolic Church 
demand of one who said God had called him to this 
work. There are no formal tests arrayed in order, by 
which the Church is to decide this important matter, 
nor yet are we left in doubt regarding it. They must 
have received spiritual eyesight, " for if the blind lead 
the blind both shall fall into the xlitch." They must 
have been reconciled to God, for reconciliation to God 
is connected with, and precedes the blessed commis- 
sion, " hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." 

They must, therefore, have the favor of God, or 
grace. Then again, he must have satisfied the Church 
that he has gifts, for it is declared that "the elder 
must be apt to teach." And lastly, he must have fruit 
of his ministry. 

That the authority given by the Divine call to the 
work of the ministry is the only authority absolutely 
necessary, is put in a terse and strong manner by 
Luther, who says, " He who is called, he is consecrated, 
and may preach Him who gave the call. That is our 
Lord's consecration, and that is the only proper chrism." 

Cranmer is equally clear and forcible on this point, 
he says : " In the New Testament he that is appointed 


to be a bishop or a priest, needeth no consecration by 
the Scripture, for election, or appointing thereto is 
sufficient.'' (Quoted in Apos. Sue., Ryan, p. 14.) 

" Cranmer, indeed, on one important occasion plainly 
avowed his conviction that in the primitive times there 
was no distinction between bishops and priests, and 
that the laying on of hands was altogether superfluous.' 
(See Aubrey's Ills, of Eng., div. 6, p. 5(>S.) 

Such were also the views of Rev. William Perkins, 
of the Universit} 7 of Cambridge. " This rule must be 
remembered, that the power of the keys, that is of 
order and jurisdiction, is tied by God, and annexed in 
the New Testament, to doctrine. If in Turkey, or 
America, or elsewhere, the Gospel should be received 
of men by the counsel and persuasion of private per- 
sons, they shall not need to send to Europe for conse- 
crated ministers, but they have power to choose their 
own ministers from within themselves ; because where 
God gives the Word, He gives the power also," (The 
Conf. of Divines, p. 24.) 

But it is asked by some, " If the Divine call be all 
that is absolutely necessary, why then do the different 
churches that acknowledge this, add to this Divine 
call, the second call, or the ordination of ministers." 

I will submit a few reasons which I trust will afford 
satisfactory answers to this question : 

1st. It was a custom in the Primitive Church to do so- 

2nd. It is proper after one called of God has proven 
to his brethren that God has so called him, that there 
should be an open, public and solemn declaration 
before the Church that he is now dedicated to the ser- 
vice of God in the ministry of the Church, 


3rd. It is a valuable safeguard, when properly used, 
against the intrusion of unconverted and ungodly men 
into the sacred calling, and designed to prevent the 
possibility of a mere hireling first thrusting himself 
into the ministry without having given any proof of 
a Divine call, and then, as he is now " a person al- 
ready in the priesthood, buy a place where he may 
exercise his ministry.'' 

4th. The ordination, or appointment by the Church 
of one truly called of God to the work of the ministry, 
serves also a valuable purpose, as it is the testimony 
of a congregation of Christian believers who are well 
acquainted with the one professing to be called of 
God, given to other congregations of Christian be- 
lievers certifying that one unknown to them, is really, 
and truly, a minister called of God. 

For these, and many more reasons which might be 
adduced, the value of the Church's ordination or ap- 
pointment, certifying to the true and original ordina- 
tion, which came when God called the laborer to work 
thus in His vineyard, is made apparent, as one of the 
many prudential enactments which God appointed for 
the safety of His Church on earth. 

We shall now examine this ordination by the Church, 
or the Church's approval of the candidate, as to the 
manner in which it was usually given, or in other 
words, what is a proper manner in which to confer 
ordination ? 

We will quote the words of Rev. Dr. Pope : " What 
is now called ordination took place generally by im- 
position of the hands of the presbytery.' 


Again we ask, why they laid their hands on them ? 

And we reply from the same authority : " This cere- 
mony was borrowed from Judaism, being the symbol 
and medium of appointment to office." 

Again : Is any supernatural grace given in conse- 
quence of, or as the necessary result of ordination, 
when accompanied by the laying on of hands ? Dr. 
Pope says : " The laying on of the hands of the apostles 
was never without a specific blessing But in 

every subsequent age the ministerial gift is imparted ; 
not as a present mysterious virtue or grace, or sacra- 
mental gift, but as a pledge in the soul of all needful 
strength and guidance for every emerging duty.'' 

Let us carefully avoid erring here, by confounding 
the essence of ordination with the non-essentials, or 
what may be termed the accidents of ordination. As 
the true and genuine Divine ordination was the call 
of God to the work, which was not accompanied with 
any external ceremonies; so the true and genuine 
human ordination is the call given by the congrega- 
tion of believers to the worker, and the mode or 
manner of signifying this call is a non-essential, and 
so forms no necessary part of the call to the work. 

This call of the congregation of believers is created 
when the congregation by vote, or otherwise, deckles 
that the proofs of the Divine call have been fully es- 
tablished. This decision is the real ordination from 
the congregation of believers, the manner of signifying 
it is a non-essential. The early Christian Church 
borrowed from the Jews the practice of laying on of 


hands, which was their custom in appointing to offices, 
and was regarded as a solemn and dignified ceremony 
in appointing persons to offices of dignity. 

We readily admit that when the apostles, who pos- 
sessed miraculous powers, laid their hands on others, 
that the act was accompanied with miraculous results, 
but none would pretend that the miraculous power 
went through the hands of the apostles as the electric 
current follows the wire, and that it would not have 
gone from the Holy Spirit to the person receiving it 
without the hands of the apostles as the connecting 
medium, in other words, the theory of " tactual trans- 
mission of grace,'' finds no proof in the fact that the 
apostles sometimes laid on hands when performing 

That the power was through the Spirit of God alone, 
and was not confined to the laying on of hands even of 
the apostles, is clear from the fact that Divine power 
was given without the laying on of their hands. 

In the third of Acts, it is recorded that at the heal- 
ing of the lame man, "Peter fastening his eyes upon him 
with John, said, Look on us.'' And Peter said, " In 
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and 
walk." There was no laying on of hands in this in- 
stance, but the only touch was when Peter took him 
by the hand to encourage his faith to trust the Divine 
power, but it was not to communicate that power to 

Again in Acts 9th chap. 34th verse, Peter said to 
tineas, " Jesus Christ maketh thee whole, arise and 
make thy bed. And he arose immediately." 


Not a word here about laying on of hands. Grace was 
there communicated without the imposition of hands. 
And in the 40th and 41st verses of the same chapter 
it is recorded, "But Peter put them all forth, and 
kneeled down and prayed ; and turning him to the 
body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes : 
and when she saw Peter, she sat up." 

Here again the apostle performed a miraculous cure, 
or grace was communicated without the imposition of 
hands, for after she had received the grace and "opened 
her eyes and sat up,' then it was that " he gave her 
his hand and lifted her up." These examples clearly 
show that the imposition of hands forms no essential 
part, and is in no sense a necessary means of confer- 
ring grace. 

Hear the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Willett, a clergy- 
man in the Church of England : 

" That imposition of hands is a comely and decent 
ceremony to be used of the Church in ordaining minis- 
ters, we willingly grant, and our Church doth detain 
orders, as that without it, on no occasion there could 
be any ordination. They determine that orders minis- 
tered without imposition of hands should not be iter- 
ated ; therefore orders may bo ministered without it." 
(Conference of Divines, p. 23.) 

Thus it is evident, that while the laying on of hands 
was a ceremony which was usually adopted in the 
early Church, it did not form an essential part in con- 
veying grace, power, or authority to those upon whom 
hands were laid. 


Augustine exclaimed, " What else is the imposition 
of hands than a prayer over a man ? " (See Religious 
Encyclopcedia, Schaff and Herzog, Art. Ordination) 
Also from the same article : — 

" The view of the English Reformers was not that 
the laying on of hands as such, conferred any grace.'' 

It is apparent that, as I said above, the deci- 
sion of the congregation of believers is the essence of 
the ecclesiastical or Church's ordination, and the im- 
position of hands is simply one part of the method of 
making it known, or of conferring it, and is not an 
essential, but may be omitted without invalidating the 
ordination or appointment which is made. 

I trust I have established the following positions : 

1st. That a Divine call to the work of the ministry 
is absolutely necessary before one assumes the 
work of a minister in the Church of Christ ; and that 
he who thrusts himself into the ministry without such 
a call disregards the injunction, " No man taketh this 
honor unto himself." 

2nd. That the call of the congregation of Christian 
believers has the sanction of the apostolic Church, 
having been practised therein, and that it is now, as it 
was then, a wise, prudential arrangement to guard the 
Church against intruders. 

3rd. That the call of the congregation of Christian 
believers, usually signified by the imposition of hands, 
did not communicate grace, or give Divine authority 
to him who was thus ordained, his authority resting 
solely on the call given him immediately, or personally, 
by God Himself. 


Having established these positions, I will now sup- 
pose a candidate presents himself for admission to 
the work of the ministry. How are we to decide 
whether he has a right to a place in the Gospel 
ministry ? In order to arrive at the proper decision, let 
us know his measure of fitness for the place. 

Firstly. He professes to have Grace, by being " re- 
conciled to God by the death of His Son," and the con- 
gregation of Christian believers with whom he has 
lived in Christian fellowship testify to the harmony 
of his profession with his life, and believe him to be 
a child of God. 

Secondly. He has exercised his gifts as a preacher 
of the Word, and those to whom he has preached 
declare he is possessed of gifts, and has " exercised 
the office well." 

Thirdly. He solemnly declares God has called him to 
this work of the -ministry, and can point to his labors 
in reclaiming the lost, and in telling the plan of salva- 
tion so effectually that perishing souls have been led 
to lay hold on Christ for salvation, as Fruits God has 
given him in his ministry of the Word. 

And lastly, after careful and prayerful thought, he 
is so fully persuaded that God has called him to this 
work that he now desires to publicly and solemnly, 
with the earnest prayers of the Christian brethren, 
consecrate all his future life to that work to which 
God has called him, and to which call He has already 
given the seal of His Divine approval. 

Upon these grounds he asks that the congregation 
of Christian believers now give their sanction to him 


as a laborer in the Master's vineyard, and certify 
their belief that God has called him to this work. 

We ask the question now, What more is necessary 
in order that he who possesses the above qualifications 
may fully enter upon, and assume all the prerogatives 
and discharge all the duties of the Christian ministry ? 
We reply, no further qualification is needed, but for 
the safety of His Church, the Great Head of the 
Church moved upon His people to guard carefully 
the office of the ministry, and require that he who 
exercises this calling, obtain the witness of his brethren 
to his fitness for the work ; and this testimony of his 
brethren is the Church's declaration of its belief that 
he is called of God, and has grace, gifts, and fruit of 
his ministry. 

When a probationer, possessed of the Divine call to 
the work of the ministry of the Word, with all that 
such a call implies, is declared by a vote of a congre- 
gation of Christian believers, in which the pure Gospel 
is preached and the discipline of the Christian fellow- 
ship maintained in its purity, to have given satisfactory 
proof of the genuineness of his claim to the Divine 
call, and is by prayer, solemnly dedicated in the public 
congregation to the work of the ministry of the Word, 
he has then received the Church's testimony to his 
claim to the Divine call, and appointment to the work, 
and is endowed with valid, scriptural ordination, to the 
exercise of all the duties of the pastoral office in the 
Church of God. 

We will next test the Methodist Church by this 
theory, which we hold is perfectly in harmony with.and 
fully based upon, the teaching of the Word of God. 


Is Methodist Polity in Harmony with the Scriptural 
Plan? An Examination of its Method of Or- 

"\TTE will now examine how nearly the Methodist 

* * Church is in harmony with the tests laid down 

by which to judge whether it be a scriptural Church. 

Ifc is without dispute, as I have already shown, a 
congregation of believers in Christ in which the pure 
Gospel is preached, the discipline of the Christian 
fellowship maintained in its purity, and I shall now 
show that it possesses the only remaining test, viz., 
" the sacraments duly administered." 

To those at all familiar with the methods of proce- 
dure in the Methodist Church, it will be seen at once 
from the foregoing statement, that her mode of select- 
ing and ordaining ministers is in accordance with the 
scriptural method. 

The Divine call is absolutely necessary for her min- 
istry ; proof of that Divine call and all it implies must 
be given and certified to by the congregation of be- 
lievers before the candidate for her ministry is ad- 
mitted to the exercise of the full duties of the pastoral 
office. Then, by a vote of Christian men, representing 


the body of believers, the decision is expressed that the 
probationer having proven himself possessed of the 
Divine call, shall, and does now, receive the sanction of 
the body of believers, and is admitted into full fellow- 
ship with those who have passed a similar period of 
trial, and have proven worthy to exercise this calling. 
By this vote he is received into full connection with 
the body of Christian pastors, is authorized to exercise 
all the functions of the pastoral office, and is entitled 
to a seat among them in the courts of the Church, and 
to vote on all questions which come before them for 
deliberation. This vote of the body of Christian pas- 
tors is the actual sanction, ordination, or appointment 
of the candidate to the work of the pastoral office, by 
the body of believers in Christ whom they reprc.-ent. 
That is, it is the ordination, or call given by the Church 
to the pastorate, and authority for the exercise of the 
full duties of the office. And by a solemn service of 
singing, preaching the Word, and exhortation to a 
faithful discharge of the duties he is now publicly 
assuming, the probationer is, by the prayers of the 
believers in Christ, solemnly dedicated to God's ser- 
vice in the work of the ministry. Thus the Methodist 
Church now appoints its presbyters. 

Now examine the Methodist Church in England at 
the time of the death of Wesle}*, and down to 18-36, 
and you will find that the above scriptural method of 
procedure was their method; and further that the 
Methodist Church did then, and always after, accept 
the vote of the Conference by which a probationer 


wag received into full connection with the Conference, 
and then in a solemn, public, religious service openly 
set apart by prayer for the work of the ministry, as a 
scriptural ordination to the work of the pastorate. 

For proof see Encyclopaedia Britan a ica, Art. Metho- 
dism : " All preachers on probation for the ministry 
after the completion of their probation were received 
into full connection with the Conference, this reception 
implying investment with all pastoral prerogatives:' 

That the first Conference after Mr. Wesley's death 
regarded the admission of the probationer into full 
connection, and the religious services connected there- 
with as conferring all the powers pertaining to the 
exercise of all the duties of the pastorate, is apparent 
from the words of the Plan of Pacification, adopted 
in 1795. One of the provisions was: "The Lord's 
Supper shall be administered by those only who are 
authorized by the Conference.'' 

As the Conference would not interfere with the ex- 
ercise of that prerogative by those ministers who had 
been ordained in the English Church, it is evident from 
this quotation that the Conference authorized preachers 
in full connection to discharge that duty. 

As some of the preachers for certain reasons, some- 
times declined to administer the sacrament, it was 
provided that in such a case he shall " Invite a neigh- 
boring preacher who is properly qualified to adminis- 
ter it." (See ilyles' Chronological History of Method- 
ism, pp. 230 and 233.) 

Again the term Preacher is used, which shows that 


one of the clergymen was not intended, and it adds, 
" who is properly qualified," clearly establishing the 
contention that the early Conferences regarded the 
admission into full connection, and the accompanying 
services, as full induction to the work of the pastorate. 
This testimony fully accords with the quotation from 
the Encyclopaedia Brlttiniilca, and proves that the 
Conference regarded the preachers in full connection 
as properly qualified to perform all the duties of the 

Guided by that unerring Providence which directs 
the steps of God's children, the Methodist Conference 
thus pursued a scriptural method by giving its formal 
sanction, or the call of the believers in Christ, to him 
who had proven he had received the Divine call or 
command, "Go, work in my vineyard." In this manner 
the Methodist Church, before 1836, appointed its pres- 
byters, and it was in perfect harmony with Scripture 

Yet ignoring, or not being aware of the truly 
scriptural character of the ordinations in the Meth- 
odist Church from 1791 till 1836, High Churchmen 
say, As a matter of fact the Wesleyan body had no 
kind of ordination whatever up to 1836." (See Meth- 
odism vs. The Church, p. 31.) 

But now we come to the question. Why did the 
Conference in 1836 add the ceremony of " the laying 
on of hands,'' on the heads of probationers, when they 
prayed over them that God would fully qualify them 
for their work ? 


We reply, because, though the hands of the or- 
dainers cannot possibly be the channel through which 
the grace of the Holy Spirit flows into the heart of 
him who is ordained, yet as it was a common practice 
in the early Church, and was regarded as a dignified 
method of inducting into office among the Jew 7 s, and was 
still regarded as such, the Conference thought it wise 
and prudent to adopt that form of publicly setting 
apart for the work of the ministry those who had 
been accepted by a vote of the Conference. 

That it was not supposed to add anything to the 
validity of the ordination, is perfectly clear from the 
fact thai, the Conference did not re-ordain those who 
had not Leon ordained by this particular form of con- 
secration, their previous mode being deemed sufficient. 

Now, I call attention to a statement of a High 
Church writer. He says: 

"In 1836, Conference declared that" (and then he 
gives the following as a quotation) " the Wesleyan 
body had departed from Scripture, from the usages of 
antiquity, and from the universal practices of the 
churches, and that the conduct of the apostles acting 
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ought to be 
followed ; and so, after much discussion and many ill- 
timed allusions to Mr. Charles Wesley's famous lines, 
ordination was voted back again," and tells us this 
quotation is from Smith's History of Methodism, vol. 
iii., p. 261-2. (See Methodism vs. The Church, p. 31.) 

I will now give the true quotations on this question 
of ordinations from Smith's History. 


(See Smith's History of Methodism, third edition, 
vol iii., pp. 325 and 326, and you will find these words, 
but not this High Churchman's quotation): "A debate 
of considerable length and great interest, in which the 
subject was thoroughly discussed, ensued. It was ad- 
mitted that the imposition of hands was only a cir- 
cumstance in ministerial ordinations, that the preachers 
previously separated to the work of the ministry, were 
undoubtedly Christian ministers in the fullest and 
best sense. 

"But it was contended that by omitting this circum- 
stance, the connection departed from the practice laid 
down in Scripture, from the usiges of antiquity, and 
the course universally adopted by other churches ; and 
that Methodist ministers stood before the country at 
some disadvantage, and were in many eases placed on 
their defence. The objection raised by Charles Wes- 
ley to his brother's ordination was alluded to, as given 
in the well known lines : — 

'"Wesley his hands on Coke has laid, 
But who laid hands on him ? ' 

"And it was admitted that, with those who held the 
doctrine of apostolic succession, in the sense of Roman 
Catholics and High Churchmen, this objection was in- 
vincible. But, instead of holding the doctrine in that 
sense, the Methodist preachers accounted it a, fable. 
They held that the true apostolic succession was, that 
the ministry appointed the ministry ; and must con- 
tinue to do so to the end of the world." 

The reader will notice the essential differences be- 


tween what this High Church writer says are the 
words of the historian, and what the author did ac- 
tually write. 

That the early Methodists were not alone in the view 
they held, that the imposition of hands was not neces- 
sary to constitute a true and valid ordination is appar- 
ent from the opinions and practices of the Indepen- 
dents and Baptists, as exhibited in their manner of 

(See the Hlitory of Dissenters, by the Rev. Dr. 
Bogue, and the Rev. Dr. Bennett, vol. i., p. 377): " Some 
of the Independents objected to the imposition of 
hands as a practice which ought to have been laid 
aside as soon as the power of conferring extraordinary 
gifts had ceased." 

And on page 379, in regard to the Baptists, they say: 
" In this denomination, too, there were some who had 
the strongest aversion to the laying on of hands in 
ordination, because 'they conceived that it savored too 
much of priestly pretensions to the communication of 
authority and extraordinary gifts. When, therefore, 
they were called to perform the service, they set the 
person apart by solemn prayer, but without the laying 
on of hands. ' 

These quotations show that before the early Meth- 
odists ordained without the imposition of hands, that 
ordination was performed in other Christian com- 
munions with the omission of this part of the form, 
and the ordinations were considered perfectly valid by 
the dissenting churches of that day. The omission of 
imposition of hands, then, in the early Methodist 


Church, is of no significance, much less does it prove 
that they did not consider their method scripturally 

What is really meant by this action of the Confer- 
ence which this High Churchman describes as " voting 
back " the ordinations of His ministers ? 

Simply this, They by vote declared that they con- 
sidered the mode of procedure which had prevailed in 
the Conference from 1791 till 1836, equally valid with 
the form which they now adopt, in which the hands 
of the ordainers are laid on the head of the ordained. 
It is, in fact, an act of the Conference designed to 
stand as a protest against the absurd theory of " tac- 
tual transmission," or that grace flows through the 
hands of the ordaining bishop when he lays them on 
the head of the ordained. 

It is the formal declaration of the Conference that 
the ordinations which had taken place by the action 
of the Conference ever since Wesley's death, were 
equally valid with those which they now performed by 
this addition to the ceremony. 

I will here introduce one whose right to speak on 
this important matter will not be questioned, and 
whose utterances will satisfy such as are familiar with 
the keen incisive logic, the broad philosophical views, 
and the transparent honesty of one who has ever justly 
stood among the most honored and revered of the 
grand men God has given Methodism ; I refer to the 
incomparable Richard Watson. Whether we view him 
as a preacher of the Gospel of Christ, or as a defender 
of the grandest of all sciences, Christian Theology, or 


as a recorder of historical facts, Richard Watson stands 
a prince among literary men. In his " Life of Wesley " 
his genius shines with especial beauty, and his philoso- 
phical acumen illumines the record he gives with the 
light which his marvellously profound insight casts 
upon all it touches. His was no superficial view of 
events, nor a dry catalogue of facts standing in unin- 
teresting and unmeaning isolation, having no visible 
relation to each other, and without any bond of 
sequence to bind them in one symmetrical whole, a 
veritable valley of dry bones ; but with keen and 
searching sight he peered into the profound depths of 
the philosophical significance of acts. To the ordinary 
mind they were but accidents, standing solitary and 
silent, in the midst of events which were moulding 
the future of Christendom ; but to Richard Watson 
they were the separate and responsible personalities 
of the great battalions of circumstances which under 
the Divine guidance were accomplishing with silent, 
but irresistible force, the will of the Supreme. Watson 
assigned each fact its proper place, and at his bidding, 
each declares its mission. To him no fact connected 
with the instituting of the Christian ministry was 
trivial. Hence we have a right to expect that upon 
this question he will spealc neither with tremulous- 
ness, nor that hesitancy which is begotten of uncer- 
tainty. Nor are our anticipations doomed to disap- 
pointment. As he passes through this important part 
of the work of Wesley his tread is firm, and his tones 
ring out clear as a bugle call. It is scarcely necessary 
that it should be said here that it is not within the 

Methodism and Anglicanism. 261 

limit of our purpose to submit at length the argu- 
ments by which Watson reaches his conclusions. For 
these the student must go to Watson's " Life of 
Wesley,'' where he will find them stated at length. 
We will present little more than the conclusions which 
resulted from his close, logical investigation. 

In the Conference of 1746, the question of Church 
government was discussed principally in reference to 
the appointment of pastors for the congregations under 
Wesley's care. Of this Watson sa3 7 s, after quoting a 
series of questions and answers on Church govern- 
ment from the Minutes of that year, " Nothing, there- 
fore, can be more clear than that Mr. Wesley laid the 
ground-work of his future proceedings, after much 
deliberation, at this early stage of his progress. He 
felt that a necessity had arisen, calling upon him to 
provide a ministry and a government for the people 
who had been raised up ; a necessity which rested 
upon the obvious alternative, that they must either be 
furnished with pastors of their own, or be left without 
sufficient aid in the affairs of their souls. This led him 
closely to examine the whole matter ; and he saw that 
when the authority of Scripture was alone referred to 
in matters of Church arrangement and regulation, it 
enjoined no particular form of administration as bind- 
ing, but left the application of certain great and in- 
violable principles to the piety and prudence of those 
whom God might honor as the instruments of useful- 
ness to the souls of men. Here he took his stand, and 
proceeded to call forth preachers and set them apart, 
or ordain them for the sacred office.'' (P. 201-203.) In a 


foot-note he adds, " It has been generally supposed 
that Mr. Wesley did not consider his appointment of 
preachers without imposition of hands as an ordination 
to the ministry, but only as an irregular employment 
of laymen in the spiritual office of merely expounding 
the Scripture in the case of a moral necessity. This, 
however, is not correct. They were not appointed to 
expound or preach merely, but were solemnly set 
apart to the pastoral office, as the Minutes of Confer- 
ence show ; nor were they regarded by him as laymen, 
except when in common parlance they were distin- 
guished from the clergy of the Church, in which case he 
would have called any dissenting minister a layman.' 
Again, Watson refers to this subject : " It may be 
asked in what light Mr. Wesley's appointments to the 
ministry in the case of his own preachers ought to be 
viewed ? That they were ordinations to the work and 
office of the ministry cannot be reasonably and scrip- 
turally doubted ; and that they were so in his own 
intention, we have before shown from his own Minutes. 
It was required of them as early as 17-16 to profess to 
be moved by the Holy Ghost, and to be called of God 
to preach. This professed call was to be tested by their 
piety, their gifts and their usefulness ; all which points 
were investigated ; and after probation, they were 
solemnly received by prayer, ' to labor with him in the 
Gospel,' and from that time were devoted wholly to 
their spiritual work, including the pastoral care of 
societies. Here was ordination, though without im- 
position of hands, which although an impressive cere- 
mony, enters not, as both the Scriptures, and the 


nature of the thing itself, point out, into the essence of 
ordination, which is a separation of men, by ministers, 
to the work of the ministry by solemn prayer. This was 
done at every Conference by Mr. Wesley ; who as he 
had as early as 1747, given up the uninterrupted 
succession and the distinct order of bishops as a fable, 
left himself, therefore, at liberty to appoint the minis- 
try in his own way." (P. 360.) 

And again : " His appointments to the ministrj' every 
Conference necessarily conveyed all the rights of a 
pastor, because they conveyed the pastoral office ; but 
still it did not follow that all the abstract rights of the 
ministry thus conveyed to the body of preachers 
should be actually used. It was not imperative upon 
them to exercise all their functions." (P. 3C1.) Again, 
Mr. Watson says : " That it (the administration of the 
sacrament) was not, in his view, ' a sin,' for want of 
mere imposition of hands, is clear from the facts that, 
in one case, he gave to one of his preachers leave to 
baptize and give the sacrament in particular circum- 
stances, although he had received no other ordination 
than his being received into full connexion at the 
Conference like the rest ; and allowed two others, Mr. 
Highfield in England, and Mr. Myles in Dublin, to 
assist him in giving the sacrament, to the great offence 
of the Church people there. That the original desig- 
nation of the preachers to the ministry was considered 
by the Conference after his death, when they were 
obliged, in order to meet the spiritual demands of the 
people, to administer the Lord's Supper to the societies 
in England, as a true and full ordination to the whole 


office of the Christian ministry, is clear from their 
authorizing the pinchers to give the sacraments, when 
requested by the societies, without re-ordination for 
this purpose, although they had Mr. Wesley's Presby- 
terian ordination by imposition of hands among them- 
selves and at their command if they had judged it 
necessary to employ it. Their whole proceeding in 
this respect was merely to grant permission to exercise 
powers which they believed to have been previously 
conveyed by Mr. Wesley." (Pp. 363 and 364.) 

In a foot-note on page 3G5, Mr. Watson says : " The 
Conference, after Mr. Wesley's death, took therefore, 
the true ground, in considering the act of admission into 
the ministry, so as to be devoted wholly to it, and to 
exercise the pastoral charge, to be a true and scriptural 
ordination both to preach the Word and to administer 
the sacraments ; making wholly light of the absurd 
pretensions of a few among the preachers, who thought 
they had received something more than their brethren, 
from the mere ceremony of the imposition of Mr. Wes- 
ley's hands, subsequent to their ordinary appointment 
by him wdien received into that body. Some of these 
at the first Conference after Mr. Wesley's death, stood 
upon this point; but Mr. Benson refuted their notiun, 
that imposition of hands was essential to ordination. 
He proved from the New Testament, that this was but 
a circumstance ; and showed that the body had always 
possessed a ministry scripturally, and therefore validly, 
ordained, although not in the most customary, or 
perhaps the most influential form. With Mr. Benson 
the Conference coincided ; so that ordination without 

Methodism and Anglicanism. 265 

the imposition of hands has continued to be t'.o 
general practice to the present time.' 

These are the opinions held by the Wesleyan C>\ 
ferenee of England, written in their official records, run 1 
embodied in their acts, before the imposition of hands 
was added to the mode of ordaining their ministers for 
the full work of the pastoral office. Yet Anglicans 
will assure us that until 1836, when the imposition of 
hands was added to the mode of ordaining, " the Meth- 
odists had no kind of ordination whatever/' This can 
be said, however, of their contradiction of the facts of 
Methodist history, that they treat all history, whether 
sacred, ecclesiastical, or secular, in an equally cavalier 
manner, when they deem the perversion or denial of 
the record necessary to their purpose. If this adds to 
their shame, it at the same time testifies to their im- 
partiality in meting out insults to all histories with 
equal measure, regardless of the writer's authority or 
the accuracy of his record. 

But the Anglicans object because of a slight addi- 
tion to our form of ordaining our ministers in 1836. 

Allow me again to call attention to a similar action 
by the Church of England, only far greater in degree. 

The form of consecrating their bishops, which was 
adopted in the first years of the Church's existence, in 
the reign of Edward VI'., simply said : " Take the 
Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up," etc. 

They were taunted with the fact that the ordinal 
did not consecrate the person to any office, much less 
to the bishopric, and after consecrating all their 
bishops for over one hundred years with this ordinal, 


they in convocation added the words here italicised, 
" Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a 
bishop in the Church of God, committed unto thee by 
the imposition of our hands: in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and 
remember that thou stir up,' etc. Yet this addition, 
which actually contains all the ivords appointing to 
the office of the bishop, Bishop Coxe defends, by saying : 
" The words added in our ordinals in 1662 make the 
old form more explicit, not a whit more sufficient." 
The reader will see they are all the words in the 
ordinal, that in any sense point to the office to which 
the person was appointed, and are in fact the pith and 
heart of the whole ceremony. 

But the High Churchman may say, "though we added 
only important words to our ordinal in 1662, words 
which designate the office to which the one consecrated 
is appointed, and the work he was to perform, which 
was not done in our ordinal for consecration for 103 
years, have you not done the same in adding the im- 
position of hands in your ordination ceremony ? " I 
reply, there are essential differences. High Church- 
men claim that in their ceremony of consecration, the 
Divine gift of the Holy Spirit is actually given, and 
that without this ceremony the gift of apostolic grace 
could not be imparted, nor received ; while we assign 
the gift of the Holy Spirit to a Divine act only, 
and hold the ordination ceremony to be the human, 
or Church's acknowledgment, of the possession of the 
gift already bestowed. We might omit all our cere- 
mony, without leaving the one who had been called 


of God to the work of the ministry devoid of any abso- 
lutely necessary, or Divine qualification; not so, how- 
ever, with such as hold apostolic succession, inasmuch 
as they teach that only by the ceremony of consecra- 
tion, the essence of the authority and grace necessary 
to constitute a right to the exercise of the duty as- 
sumed, is communicated. If, therefore, there be any 
essential lack in the ceremony, the grace is not bestowed. 
And we hold that the omission of the designation, not 
only of the office, but also of the work to be performed 
was necessarily a fatal omission. 

Again, the change made in our manner of ordaining 
when the imposition of hands was added, was simply 
an addition to that which was confessedly the external 
human form of signifying that the Internal, spiritual 
grace ims alreadg possessed by the one ordained; but 
the words added to the ordinal by which the Episco- 
palian Church consecrate their bishops, convey, 
according to their theory, the authority and power for 
the performance of the duties of the.ojfice of a bishop, 
and they are the only words in the ordinal which do 
in any sense profess to convey any such authority. 

If, therefore, the ordinal is the medium for the 
transmission of such spiritual power and grace, an 
ordinal which does not in any sense refer to such 
power, cannot convey it. Therefore, on their own 
theoiy, the ordinal used by the Church of England 
from 1559 till 1662, i.e., for 103 years, did not convey 
any episcopal powers, for these words which denote 
the office to which the one ordained was consecrated, 
are not in the old ordinal, nor are there any equivalent 


words there. Seeing this, they, after having conse- 
crated all their bishops for 103 years by the old and 
fatally defective ordinal, in 1662, added these words: 
" For the office a?id work of a bishop in the Church of 
God, committed unto thee by the imposition of our 
hands in the name of the Father, and of the Sod, and of 
the Holy Ghost." Yet they challenge the action of the 
Methodist Church, because, in 1830, it simply added 
the imposition of hands to their form of ordaining. 
They strain at a Methodist gnat, while they swallow 
an Episcopalian camel. 

When the Conference in 1S36 added the form of 
laying on of hands to their manner of appointing men 
to the work of the ministry, they did not suppose the 
simple form they added, which cannot compare in 
significance with the words added to the English 
Church ordinal, made their old form of ordination either 
" more explicit, or a whit more sufficient," but it was 
sanctioned by scriptural precedent, and therefore right. 
Furthermore if the action of the Wesleyan Conference in 
1836, in adding the laying on of hands, could have been 
in any way construed to imply a doubt of the validity 
of their previous method of inducting into the minis- 
try, their formal vote passed at the same time, declar- 
ing their judgment that all previous ordinations were 
equally valid with those now made, absolutely pre- 
cludes the possibility of putting such an interpreta- 
tion on their act. 

But this cannot be said of the action of the English 
Church in 1662, and for this very plain and convinc- 
ing reason. 


Their ordinal, by which they had consecrated their 
bishops for 103 years, did not consecrate to any office 
in the Christian Church ; whereas the words they 
added in 1G62 did both " explicitly and sufficiently " 
designate the office, which the ordinal they had used 
for 103 years did not mention, nor even remotely 
refer to, and it was therefore, in point of fact, a 
new ordinal. In view of this historical and un- 
deniable fact, perhaps, it will occur to the mind of 
the reader that, while the English Church in 1GG2 
openly confessed the vital omission in the ordinal she 
had used in consecrating her bishops for 103 years, by 
adding the only words which declare he is to be a 
bishop ; that the Wesleyan Conference, when it added 
a confessedly non-essential form to her manner of or- 
daining, carefully guarded against any such charge as 
lies at the door of the English Church, by formally 
declaring that the ordination, or appointment of all 
such as had been received into full connection pre- 
viously, without the laying on of hands, was equally 
valid with those upon whom hands were laid by the 
new form of ordaining. 

It follows, therefore, that the Methodists had ordina- 
tions in a scriptural manner before 1836, that the 
ordinations of the Methodist ministers are scripturally 
valid, and that by them the sacraments are duly 

I submit then this brief, but, I trust clear, and 
scriptural demonstration of the validity of the ordina- 
tions in the Methodist Church, without deeming it 
necessary to refer further to the undoubtedly Divine 


authority possessed by John Wesley, to lay the founda- 
tion of a system of which he said, " it was likely to 
stand as long as the sun and moon endure." 

But there was another kind of officer in the early 
Christian Church, whose duty it was to assist the pres- 
byters in their duties, and look after the temporal 
interests of the Church. 

They were called deacons. 

For the discharge of the duties of deacons, the 
Methodist Church appoints officers, giving them the 
name of stewards, and the following is the law regard- 
ing their appointment : 

In Acts, chap, vi., verse 3, it is said deacons must be 
" men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and 
wisdom." In the early Christian Church they 
were selected by the congregation of believers, and 
appointed by those who were engaged in the ministry 
of the Were!, and the Methodist economy harmonizes 
perfectly with this scriptural method. The require- 
ments demanded in the Scriptures for the office of 
deacon are reproduced in the Methodist Discipline as 
the necessary qualifications for the office of a steward, 
for it says, " Let the stewards be men of solid piety, 
and of good natural and acquired abilities to transact 
the temporal business " (see par. 206). 

Thus, in the selection of presbyters and deacons, 
the theory and practice of the Methodist Church is 
thoroughly in harmony with the Word of God. 

I trust I may fairly claim that I have shown that 
the Methodist Church is a "congregation of believers in 
which the pure Gospel is preached, the sacraments 


duly administered, and the discipline of the Christian 
fellowship maintained in its purity." And it is thus 
apparent that the Methodist Church is a true and 
valid branch of the Church of Christ, and that her 
ministry has the Divine sanction, or ordination, to- 
gether with the true, and valid Church, or human 
ordination as well. 

We will now present a brief review of the case. 
John Wesley, who was called of God, and had obtained 
the human sanction, or testimony to that call, devoted 
his life to the salvation of his fellows. 

God, who called him, gave him success in gathering 
many souls into Christ's fold. 

Believing in the value and necessity of the " com- 
munion of saints," Wesley intended, and endeavored 
most strenuously, to unite them to the English Church ; 
so desirous in fact was he to accomplish this end that 
he repeatedly urged his followers to partake at the 
communion table of the English Church, and set them 
the example by doing so himself. 

He also publicly and frequently declared his adher- 
ence to that communion, and never formally separated 
from it. But all his efforts to maintain Christian 
communion between the people whom God gave him 
in the Gospel, and the Church of England were fruit- 
less. He was denied admission to the Episcopalian 
churches, and his followers rudely and insultingly 
repulsed from the sacrament of our Lord's Supper in 
those churches. 

He, a properly authorized minister of the Gospel, 
because authorized and qualified by God, and sanctioned 


by the representatives of the congregation of believers 
in Christ, organized his followers into congregations, 
built places of worship for them, selected and appointed 
men called of God to preach the pure Gospel to them, 
administered the discipline of Christian fellowship 
among them ; and finally, at the urgent and repeated 
requests of these congregations of believers in Christ, 
by ordaining, or appointing certain of these preach- 
ers, who had given satisfactory proof that God had 
called them to this work, he provided for the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments among them, by persons 
properly qualified to do so. 

Yielding partly to the impressions of his early teach- 
ing, influenced also by the prejudices of some of the 
the members of the societies, and prompted by a desire 
for peace, he restricted the number of them actually 
permitted to exercise all the duties of the pastorate 
within narrow limits, and hindered, as much as in 
his power, all manifestations which would cause 
antagonism between the Church which he organized 
and the National Church of England. Yet he took 
this course without admitting that he had not the 
power to authorize them to perform all the duties of 
the pastoral office ; it was simply holding the exercise 
of such power in abeyance. 

But at the same time, to protect the Methodists 
from destruction at the hands of their bitter, unscrupu- 
lous and unreasoning enemies in the Episcopalian 
Church, he obtained licenses for his preachers under 
a law passed to protect those who " dissented from 
the Church of England," and also, by an Act of Par- 
liament enacted specially for that purpose, secured the 


legal recognition of the rights of his societies to prose- 
cute their church work. 

That he meant to secure these rights to them for- 
ever is clear, for he said of* the Deed of Settlement, as 
this Act of Parliament is called, that the rights of the 
Methodists were now secured on " a foundation likely 
to last as long as the sun and moon endure." 

Thus the Methodists at the time of Wesley's death, 
were, by his long-considered and carefully deliberated 
plans, organized as "a congregation of believers in 
Christ, in which the pure Gospel is preached, the sacra- 
ments duly administered, and the discipline of Chris- 
tian fellowship maintained in its purity," and this or- 
ganization is recognized, and its rights guaranteed to 
them by a statute of the Parliament of the realm. 

With this organization at harmony both with the 
method of establishing Christ's kingdom as taught in 
the Scriptures, and with the law of the land, the Meth- 
odist Church stood before the world at the time when 
her great earthly leader was taken on high. 

History also tells us how the Church after Wesley's 
death steadily pursued the conservative polity of her 
leader, and only after it became most clearly neces- 
sary was any change or development of her policy al- 
lowed. Nor was there, on the other hand, any abate- 
ment of " one jot or tittle " of the rights, privileges or 
functions secured her by the wise, and most undoubt- 
edly divinely-guided foresight of Wesley. As he for 
forty years held in abeyance, for the sake of peace, the 
right to ordain ministers by a ceremony such as 
was usually adopted for the work of the pastorate, 


without in any sense admitting he did not actually 
possess it, so the Methodist Church for another forty 
years after his death, for the sake of peace, refrained 
from the use of thatsameform inordaining herministers, 
viz., the imposition of hands, without in any sense ad- 
mitting that she, as a Church of Christ, did not actually 
possess the right to adopt such form if it were deemed 
best to do so. And again, she followed his example 
when, in 1836, believing that the imposition of hands 
in ordination would add impressiveness to the cere- 
mony, and as it was authorized by Scriptural example, 
she adopted it for the good of the Church, while at 
the same time she wisely and prudently guarded 
against even an apparent sanction of the assumption 
that it added " one whit to the sufficiency " of the 
ceremony, by formally declaring the ordinations which 
had been made during the preceding years, without 
the imposition of hands, but by a vote of the represen- 
tatives of the Church, equally valid with those now 
made with the addition of this form. 

It is unnecessary to give even a brief review of the 
progress of the Church thus providentially brought 
into the great sisterhood of Christian Churches, and 
by an equally manifest Divine guidance, blessed not 
only with marvellous success in bringing souls to 
Christ herself, but also in arousing the stagnant 
Christian life of the eighteenth century into evan- 
gelical activity, as these seals to the true and genuine 
character of her claim as a Church of Christ, are 
gladly and cheerfully accorded her by all evangelical 
Christians, who also give her a cordial greeting as "the 


friend of all, and the enemy of none.'' She has her 
foes, however, and will gladly, courageously and suc- 
cessfully, by continued Divine help, give them battle, 
till the millennial glory of her King illumines all dark 
places, destroys all forms of sin and error, and unites 
in one family of God, all His poor erring children, 
who too often forget the true work of the King's 
battalions in the Church militant, and expend on other 
regiments the force which should be thrown against 
the enemy, and even deny their brethren-in-arms any 
place in the King's army, simply because their manner 
of enlistment differs from their own. 

And this is all the more strange in the face of the 
undeniable fact that the King has called them into 
His service, the Holy Spirit has instructed them in 
the methods of work, and given them unparalleled 
success in invading the territory of the common foe, 
and that multiplied thousands of her soldiers have 
died on the battlefield of life, ever with their faces to 
the foe, rejoicing that it is their privilege to spend 
their strength for Christ, and glad to lay down their 
lives in His cause, and witness with their dying 
breath as their leader did, " The best of all is, God is 
with us." 

With such a record, I submit that the Methodist 
Church has fully verified her claim to a place on the 
great Christian battlefield, and has full and satisfac- 
tory credentials from the King of kings, that she is a 
true, loyal and validly enlisted regiment in God's 
Church militant. 

I pray that the time may soon come when strife 


shall cease, and " the watchmen on Zion's walls shall 
see eye to eye,'' and instead of greeting each other with 
the charge of illegal birth, extend a brother's hand, 
and a brother's welcome to all who, being horn of God, 
are brethren in Christ, and of the family of heaven. 
Thus irresistibly working for our common Master, 
we shall hasten the time when the grand millennial 
song shall be sung from the rivers to the end of the 
earth, " The kingdoms of this world have become the 
kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ." 


Apostolic Succession through Parker., (see Church of England) — 
What the other Churches which believe in Apostolic Succession 
say about the claims of the Episcopal Church, 103. Romish 
Church, 103. The Greek Church, 104. The opinion of Hooker, 
105. Harmony between Neal's account of Parker's consecration 
and Hooker's theory, 106. Bishop Randall's admission, 108. 
Rev. Dr. Ives, 108. Dr. Lee, 109. 

Apostolic Succession, an* Un" scriptural Doctrine, 183. The High 
Church theory stated, 1S5. Not instituted in Matt, xxviii: 16-20, 
and reasons given. 186. Lanye, 188. Dr. Hook's bold asser- 
tion, 190. Dictionary of the Church, 191. Other authorities, 
191. Eusebius' doubts and difficulties, 192. Stillingfleet's 
opinion, 193. Bishop Hooper's, 194. Bishop Jewell's, 191, 
Bishop Burnet's, 195. Dr. John White's, 195. John Bradford's, 
M.A., Dr. Fulke's, Bishop Alley's, 196. Bishop Cooper's, Dr. 
Isaac Barrow's, 197. Bishop Hoadly's, 199. Records of 
British Churches lost, says Stillingfleet, 199. The Judicious 
Hooker's admission, 200. Lord Macaulay's statement, 200. 
Archbishop Whately's, 201. Wesley's, Dr. Southey's, Dr. 
Stoughton's, Rev. J. Radford Thompson's, and Rev. Dr. 
Phillips Brooks', 202. Rev. Dyson Hague's, Bishop of Here- 
ford's, "Princeton Review for 1855," 203 Theory useless if 
historically proven, 205. Proofs from history, 206. Claims 
of this theory balanced, 207- 

Ancient British Chukch, 59, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68. 

Aidax's Consecration Presbyterial, 178. 

Archbishop Theodore subdued all to Rome, 69. Archbishop 
Parker's consecration, 84 ; fatal flaw in it, 85. Strype's account, 
86. Parker's scruples, 88. Compelled by the Queen, 89. His 
sorrow, 90. The illegal ordinal, 91. The ceremony, 92. Valid- 
ity still doubtful, 93. Act of Parliament to legalize, 93. 
Romanist objections, 93. The ordinal used, 94 The ordinal 
improved, 95. Defended by Bishop Coxe, 93. His defence ex- 
amined, 97. The real question which was settled by Act of 
Parliament, 98. The real origin of this theory, 99. A sum- 
ming up, 101. 

Augustine's advent to Britain, 55. 

Auricular Confession, and class meetings contrasted, 39. 



Baptismal Regeneration defined, 41. Wesley's teaching regard- 
ing it, 42. Cardinal Newman, 44. Wesley's view, 4;"). Extract 
from pamphlet of Rev. James Lawson, 45. 

Baptismal Regeneration taught by High Churchmen, 132. 

Bkdk describes the Church government of the ancient British 
Church as presbyterial, 178, 179. 

Bisiiop of Liverpool on separation, 20. 

Church of England when first founded a Papal Church and 
remained Papal till the Reformation — Papal founded, when 
(.*€? Origin of Church of England). It remained Papal till the 
Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, 74. Differences between 
the Papal and Protestant Churches in England, 74. Hallam, 
75. Neal, 77. Hallam, 78. Hamilton, 80. Macaulay, 80. 
Thompson and Macfarlane, 81. Mastin vs. Escott, 82. Neal, 
83. Has the Church of England a valid autonomy on their 
theory of Episcopacy and Apostolic Succession, 84. Irregu- 
larities in Parker's consecration, 85. Parker's doubts, 88. 
Neal's description of Parker's consecration, 91. Objections of 
Romanists, 93. Invalid ordinal, 95. Apology for it by Bishop 
Coxe, 95. Weakness of defence, 96. The true origin of the 
Church of England, 99. The only claim for Apostolic (Succes- 
sion, 101. 

Confession taught by High Church, 136. 

Celibacy taught by High Church, 147 and 154. 

Church, The, gives the Scriptures according to High Church teach- 
ing, 133. Clergymen, one hundred, left the Episcopal Church 
in ten years, Why? 108. 

Chad's Consecration, 179. 

Conversion of Wesley, 48. 

Consecration of Austin or Augustine, 67. 


Deed of Settlement, object of, 29. 
Dissenters are heretics, 144, 


Episcopacy. Is it enjoined in Scripture ? High Church claims, 1 58. 
Dean Alford on " Presbuterons," 159. Clemens Romanus, 161. 
Stillingfleet, 161. Ordination of Barnabas and Saul, 162. 
Wesley examined, 163. Dean Alford, 164. 1 ange, 164. Poole, 
Burkitt and Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, 165. The Lord 
Bishop of Bath and Wells, 166. Firmillian, 167. Moshiem, 
168. Wesley, 168. Bishop Lightfoot, 169. Bishop Lightfoot 
examined, 170. Didache, 170. Dr. Schaff, 171. Primitive 
Ecclesia, 171. " The Churchman Armed," 173. Hallain, 174. 
When first taught in English Church, 174. Presbyterial 
ordinations recognized till A.D. 1661, 177. Cranmer's opin- 
ion, 177. Bede's testimony about ancient British Church 
form of government, 178. Wickliffe's, 180 Bishop Burnet's 
181. An important document, 181. Episcopacy is not 
enjoined in Scripture, 182. 


Green, Rev. John Richard, on ancient British Church, 63. 

Greek Church denies the validity of the Orders of the Church of 
England, 104. 


High Church. Was John Wesley a High Churchman? 36. High 
Churchmen claim him, 39. High Church teaching on Baptis- 
mal Regeneration, 41. Wesley's, 42. Cardinal Newman, 44. 
Rev. James Lawson, 45. Letter of Lord North, 48. Miss 
Wedgewood's declaration, 48. Wesley's opinion of High 
Churchmen, 49. Wesley not a High Churchman, 50-53, Is High 
Churehism Romanism? 129. Quotations from High Church 
"Manual of Doctrine," 131. Baptismal Regeneration, 133 The 
Scriptures founded on "the Church," 131. Apostolic Succes- 
sion more certain than the identity of the Word of God, 135. 
Confession to a priest and absolution, 137. Real Presence, 137. 
From Gace's Catechism, 144. Testimony of Cardinal Newman, 
145. Quotations from "John Wesley in Company with High 
Churchmen," 146. Cardinal Manning, 148. Rev. Dr. Fraser, 
Bishop of Manchester, 150. From "The Churchman Armed," 
151. On celibacy, 154. Effects of High Church teaching, 155, 
High Church a hybrid, 120. 

Hooker's admission of the validity of non-Episcopal ordinations, 
105. High Church claims for Apostolic Succession denied by 
every other branch of the Christian Church, 104, 

280 INDEX. 


Inconsistency charged against Wesley, 31. 

Imposition of hands added in 1836 by the Wesleyan Conference, 253. 

Iveh, Rev. Dr., Bishop in North Carolina, reasons for leaving the 
Anglican Church, 108. 


Knigiit, CnARLES, on the ancient British Church, 62. 


Methodism, was it separate from the Episcopal Church ? 25. 
Wesley's frequent declaration, 25. Wesley's own statement 
of the case, '26. The meaning of the Deed of Settlement, 28. 
Facts to prove separation, 30. Is the Methodist Church a 
valid Christian Church ? 238. Definition of a true Church, 
239. Are the sacraments duly administered in the Methodist 
Church? 240. A call necessary, 241. Proof of call demanded, 
243. Scriptural texts, 243. C runnier and Luther, 243. 
Perkins, 244. Why the human ordination ? 244 What 
is the proper manner for this service? 245. Not confound 
essence with non-essentials, 246 Laying on of Apostles' 
hands, 247. Rev. Dr. Willett, 248. Augustine, 249. Posi- 
tions established, 249. Grace, gifts and fruits of ministry, 
250. Test the Methodist theory and practice, 251. Method of 
ordaining, 252. How it was viewed, 253. " Kncy. Brit.," 254. 
Plan of pacification proves it, 254. "Preacher" the term 
used, 255 Why lay on hands in 1836 — Quotation from 
Smith's History of Methodism, 257. From History of Dissenters, 
258. Richard Watson's view. Wesley has his preachers 
assist him in administering the sacrament, 263. Anglicans 
object to our addition in 1 836 ; examine their own, 265, 
The Conference defined its position, 268. Deacons appointed, 
270. The case reviewed, 271. The conclusion, 274. 

Membership in the national Church of England, 32. 

Origin of the Church of England, 54. Different theories, 55, 
56. The real question, 56. What history teaches, 58, 59. 
The lease given the Kcclesia Anglicana in the time of Alfred, 
61. Testimony of historians, Aubrey. 62. Knight, 62. Green, 
63. Canon Venables, 63. Form of papal oath, 65. Papal 
Church in 596-7, 66. Moshiem, consecration of Augustine, 67. 
Moshiem, Bede, Ryan, 67. Dr. Henry, 68, " Ency. Brit.," 

INDEX. 281 

69. Venables, 70. Canon Perry, 70. The Venerable Bede, 
71. Church of England remained Papal, {see English Church). 
Date of the birth of the present Church of England, 112. 
Hallam's testimony, 113. A child of Providence, 114. "Salt 
in Discourse," 117. Why High Churchmen deny that the 
Church of England is Protestant, 117. Is the Church of Eng- 
land a Protestant Church? 119. First use of term in this con- 
nection, 120. Oath in Act of Supremacy, 1'21. Dr. Croly's 
testimony, 122. Act of Settlement, 123. Alpheus Todd's 
evidence, 124. Summing up proofs, 126. 

Ordination of Paul and Barnabas, 162. Ordinations of preachers 
by John Wesley, 30 English Church ordinal for consecrating 
bishops perfected after having been used for 103 years, 94. 
Ordinations in ancient British Church, presbyterial, 179. 
Parker's consecration, 86. Act to legalize, 93. Passing the 
Act proves the existence of grave doubts 94. Ordination 
by Wesley after his sermon on the Ministerial Office preached 
in 1789, 23. Ordained men for the work in England, 22. 

Orders, validity of, in Church of England on the Apostolic Succes- 
sion theory denied by all Churches, 104. Doubted by some 
High Churchmen, 105. 

Ordination of Bishop Chad denied by Archbishop Theodore because 
not episcopal, 179. 

Ordinal used in consecrating Archbishop Parker, 94. Ordinal im- 
proved, 93. Improvement defended oy Bishop Coxe, 95. 

Ordination of St. Paul, 162. 


Papal Church founded in England in A.D., 596-7, 66. 

Protestantism the faith of the true Church of England, 121. 
Presbyterial ordination the method in the ancient British 
Church, 1/8. Prayers for the dead taught by High Church, 

Presbyterial governmer-t in ancient British Church, 178. 

Presbyterial ordinations acknowledged in Church of England, 177. 


Real Presence of body of Christ taught by High Church, 138. 

Roman Church rejects the claim of the Church of England to 
Apostolic Succession, 103, 

282 INDEX. 


Sacramental grace taught by High Church, 148. 

Sacraments not provided for in Deed of .Settlement. Why? 20. 

.Separation from Church of England, nature of the question, 12. 
Two aspects of it, 13. Wesley unable to answer arguments for, 
14. The real question, ]."). What Wesley meant, his actual 
course, 16. Tyerman's view, 16. Opinion of Lord Mansfield 
and Charles Woley, 17. Sou they *s view, 18. Miss Wedge- 
wood's, 19. Dr. Ryle's, (Bishop of Liverpool). 20. Wesley "a 
attitude on separation amid difficulties, 16. What constitutes 
separation, '23. Wesley's letter on separation, 26. Its meaning, 
27. His real attitude, 2S. Proven by historical facts, 30. 

Services by Methodists during Church hours, 21. 

Sermox on ministerial office, 22. 


Tests of a Trde Gospel Ministry, 209. High Church teachings 
anti-scriptural, 210. Appointing of ministers in Church, of 
England anti-scriptural, 211. Simon Magus' descendants, 211. 
Sale of preferments in army abolished, but retained in 
Church, 213. The law of the Church of England about livings, 
213. 'The oath taken by the clergy, 210. Pei jury as well as 
simony in the trallic in Church livings, 216. Advertisements 
for sale and purchase of Church livings, 216. Lord Coke on 
simony and perjury, 218. A terrible exposure of these practices 
by Uev. Downes Willis, Rector of Elsted, 220. Practical 
results of the system, by Lord Lonsdale and others, 223. 
Cardidal Newman's severe strictures justified, 226. " Jly their 
fruits ye shall know them," 228. Statistics, 229. Religious 
standard, 230. Criminal statistics, 232. Episcopal claims 
to chaplaincies in prisons, 235. Is the Methodist Church a 
true Gospel Church '.' {stt Methodism). 


Wesley, John, did he separate from the Church of England, 11. 
His real attitude, 12. Accused of inconsistencies, 13. Two 
aspects of the question, 13. Wesley's confession, 14. His 
attitude analyzed, 16, 17- Lord Mansfield's opinion, 17. 
Tyerman's, 18. Dr. Southey's, 18. 19. Miss Wedgewood's, 19. 
The Bishop of Liverpool, Dr. Ryle, 20. Wesley's acts as 
understood by others, 21, 22. What constitutes separation, 

Wesley and the High Church, 36. Wesley on Apostolic Succes- 
sion, on Episcopacy, 168 ; On Baptismal Regeneration, 42, 44. 
Wesley ordained ministers for the Methodist societies, 21, 22,